beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.02.22 2017가단21496

손해배상(기)

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 15,929,00,06, Plaintiff B, C, and D, respectively, and each of the said KRW 7,286,004 on March 7, 2017.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On March 7, 2017, the deceased on March 10, 2017, after three days from March 10, 2017, the deceased, who suffered from injury, such as external blood transfusions, ductal ducts, and ductal ducts, in the last part of the stairs, which were set up on the first floor of the construction site at the construction site in the middle of a house located in G, which were down in the middle of the construction site.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the site of the instant accident (inter between the first floor and the ground floor), there was no safety gap or safety net that could prevent the fall, and the Deceased did not wear a safety cap.

Plaintiff

A is the spouse of the deceased, and the children of the deceased B, C, and D are children of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs asserted that there was no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (if there is a serial number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness H and I's testimony, the occurrence of the overall purport of the arguments, and the limitation of liability for damages, the plaintiffs suffered from the death of the deceased from the first floor of the construction site to the ground level. However, the defendant asserts that the deceased died from a self-cerebral cerebrovascular, which is not on credit, or the stairs of which is on the first floor from the ground level were affected by shock, etc. due to shocks caused by urology.

[Judgment 1] A photograph 2] (A photograph 1) (A photograph 1 shows the stairs between the ground floor and the first floor in the site of the accident in this case. The photograph 2 was taken after the safety distress was installed on the first floor after the occurrence of the accident in this case. At the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, the deceased's appearance was the same as the body at the left bottom of the photograph 2). According to the evidence mentioned above, the deceased was considered to have died on the ground that he fell from the first floor without safety distress, or fell from the first floor without the safety distress to the ground floor at least connects with the first floor and the first floor, and then he was employed by the owner of the building. The defendant who newly constructed a house under the direct control of the owner of the building in this case.