beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가단66789

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the vehicle A (the number of the vehicle was changed to D; hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant, “E”, is operating the Vice Minister in its trade name.

F On September 15, 2017, around 20:45, in order to drive the instant vehicle, the F was faced with the front part of the steel-frame structure in the parking lot, leaving the said Sejong Deputy Commissioner, while driving the instant vehicle.

The Defendant, who installed and manages the above Sejong Deputy, was negligent in the installation and maintenance of the structure, and caused the accident of this case, even though the Defendant was responsible for the duty of safety management or protection to prevent the danger by installing a warning sign, light object, etc. when there is a steel structure in a place where the vehicles pass by the Sejong Deputy Deputy Chief at night, and the vehicle is at risk of being damaged by the vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by the said accident. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the total amount of damages KRW 26,318,50 [=14,400,000 per day (=480,000 won per day x 30 days) incurred by the Plaintiff.”

(B) The plaintiff's assertion is cited as above.

The defendant's argument F does not enter the exit from the entrance side of the third secretary general of the instant car, but enter the exit to the exit. In particular, F enters the office of the motor vehicle traps in the third secretary general, not for the detailed purpose, to visit the office of the motor vehicle traps in the third secretary general of the instant car, and the purpose of the visit was not any relation to the defendant's business, and it is inconsistent with the purpose of the visit when the structure and shape of the steel-frame structure in the front part of the instant vehicle and the third secretary general were confirmed. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the vehicle was destroyed by the third secretary general. If the instant vehicle was damaged by the steel structure in the third secretary general, if the vehicle in question was destroyed on September 15, 2017.