Seoul Gwangjin-gu Military Automatic

Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Chang-dong

Representative Director: 100

Attorney Song-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

By the date of full payment, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

H. D. Payment

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 6, and Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers):

A. On December 29, 2004, while under the influence of alcohol on and around December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff operated the instant elevator by entering the instant elevator into the vehicle parking elevator in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant elevator”). The Plaintiff died (hereinafter “the instant accident”) by falling the instant elevator’s floor and the instant elevator’s four floors via a space with a large amount of 370 meters space between the wall surface and the entrance.

B. Meanwhile, while the defendant entered into an elevator inspection contract with the head of the management office on the elevator of this case from May 1, 2001 and was in charge of the business of maintenance, management, repair, etc. of the elevator of this case from around May 1, 2001, he was notified by the Korea Elevator Safety Center that the management office installed the protection board or locking device within 125 meters of the horizontal distance between the elevator floor of this case and the wall surface of this case from the Korea Elevator Safety Center around January 5, 2004, he was reported to the above management office by calculating the expenses to be incurred in the implementation of the said recommendation, but the management office failed to implement the said recommendation for lack of expenses.

C. The Defendant’s representative director was subject to the disposition that there was no suspicion of negligence in management or violation of the duty of care in repairing and managing the instant elevator in the case of occupational negligence No. 39068 of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2006 regarding the instant accident.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, as the person responsible for the construction and management of the instant elevator, has the duty to prevent accidents in advance. Despite the recommendation of the Korea Elevator Safety Center, the Defendant, despite the recommendation of the correction of the Korea Elevator Safety Center, has neglected the dangerous space of 370 meters between the floor of the instant elevator and the mouths during operation, and managed the instant elevator in the form of free opening so that it can enter any place, and it is difficult to confirm the details of the warning, etc. due to the failure to install lighting facilities on the access road to the instant elevator. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for active damages caused by the instant elevator, namely, funeral expenses of 5,00,000 won, passive damages of KRW 145,50,000, monthly salary of KRW 1,500,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 200,000, and KRW 200,000 as mental damages at the time of the death of the Deceased.

3. Determination

In light of the above facts, the deceased died by falling down with a large volume of 370 meters generated during the operation of the elevator of this case, and around January 5, 2004, the management office of this case was notified by the Korea Elevator Safety Center that the horizontal distance between the wall surface and the entrance entrance of this case shall not exceed 125 meters, but the above recommendation was not implemented for lack of expenses. The defendant calculated the expenses to be incurred in the maintenance, management, repair, etc. of the elevator of this case through the elevator inspection contract with the above management office and reported to the above management office. In addition, in addition to these facts, the elevator of this case is for the vehicle parking of those who enter and depart from the office, and the elevator of this case is not originally premised on passenger's right of correction to ensure that the horizontal distance between the wall surface and the entrance entrance of this case does not exceed 125 meters, but the defendant did not perform the above recommendation as a manager of the above elevator of this case within the scope of safe operation of the elevator of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-soo

Judges Lee Jae-min