손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, which are either changed, added, or deleted, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
On the third side of the judgment of the first instance court, the "Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd." in the third part of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deemed to be "Modern Industrial Development Co., Ltd.", and the "Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development" in the same behavior and the 10th sentence shall be deemed to be "
Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be referred to as "witness of the first instance trial" as "witness of the first instance trial."
From the fourth side of the judgment of the first instance, paragraphs 2 through 5 shall be deleted from the bottom of the second to 2, and the following parts shall be added thereto:
According to the above facts, Defendant C, who is engaged in the operation of the digging pool, has a duty of care to safely drive the digging pool in order to prevent safety accidents in advance. The duty of care includes a duty of care to safely drive the digging pool with the condition that it limits access to others or obstructs the operation of others, other than the working party within the working party within the digging range, and the duty of care is not to be established at the time of the launch of the digging range, but to verify the situation of the digging range. Since Defendant C is additionally established to check the condition of the digging range, the driver of the digging range after the installation shall also bear a duty of care to safely drive the digging range by using the rear shooting range. This includes a duty of care to safely drive by examining the anticipated driving direction of the digging range as far as possible, and it does not change even if Defendant C had a duty of care to safely drive the digging range in accordance with Defendant G’s new subparagraph.
In addition, the defendant C is also the back part of the excavation search machine of this case.