손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 23, 2015, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant Young-si entered into a contract for the CY-si Reinforcement Work on September 23, 2015.
(B) The above reinforcement work to be executed by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
The instant construction works are reinforced with regard to the section of 220 meters in length and 17.1 meters in width, from the beginning of the Seocho-si (hereinafter “instant road”) and the construction period from September 24, 2015 to December 23, 2015.
C. On October 26, 2015, the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency 112 general situation room received a report that the proprietor was in the front of the E-cafeteria located in Seocho-si, Seocho-si. G was dispatched according to the said report and discovered the Plaintiff who was in the construction site of the instant case, and the Plaintiff was sent to a nearby hospital by the 119 emergency squad around 22:17 on the same day.
(A) The following facts are found: (a) the Plaintiff’s above accident (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) there is no dispute; (c) evidence Nos. 5; (d) evidence Nos. 7; (e) evidence Nos. 7; and (e) evidence Nos. 1; (e.g., video; hereinafter the same shall apply); (d) witness G’s testimony; (e., witness G’s testimony; and (e) fact-finding on the F District of the
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. At the time of the instant accident, facilities, etc. were not installed properly to prevent access to the instant road at the construction site at the time of the instant accident, and no management personnel, etc. to control access were assigned.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered the construction site of this case as it was, and put up along the bicycle lane among the roads of this case. At the time, street lamps were taken out due to the construction works of this case, and there were several military teams at the construction site of this case, and construction materials were left. Thus, the Plaintiff ultimately goes beyond the scope of advice at the construction site of this case.