beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2014가단88671

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant D Co., Ltd, E, and F jointly share KRW 20,781,560, and KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff B and C, respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant Han-jin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-jin”) ordered the operation of the logistics center to Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”), and Defendant E ordered the cargo distribution center to load and unload the cargo at the H logistics center located in the wife population G (hereinafter “instant logistics center”) according to the said contract.

B. In addition, Defendant Han-jin ordered Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) to manage the machinery and facilities of the instant logistics center, according to the said contract, Defendant D performed the business of repairing the facilities of the instant logistics center when the facilities of the instant logistics center are broken down, and the Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant D.

C. On September 12, 2013, around 08:35, Plaintiff A received a chain failure report in the instant logistics center and arrived at the site of the accident. D.

In principle, when the consortium repair work is carried out, in principle, the work should be carried out while the consortium breaker and the hybrid breaker all. However, on the day of the accident in this case, many of the apartment exhausters are loaded in front of the Western breaker, and it was inevitable to take a considerable time to stop the work and to proceed with the work. As the field employees of Defendant E appeal for delay of work, the Plaintiff A did not get a slab breaker to the person in charge of the site belonging to Defendant E, and the Plaintiff A asked the person in charge of the job site belonging to Defendant E, to put the main breaker off and carried out the consortium repair work.

However, during the process of the work, Defendant F, who belongs to Defendant E, did not cut the mercator to the upper part of the selective distribution product, and thereby, the Plaintiff A suffered the injury that the mercator was cut off to the right part of the mercator because the mercator operated.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) e.

Plaintiff

B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, 8, 9, and Eul 1.