손해배상(기) 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasons for this part of the claim that the court is responsible for damages are as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following judgments, which are specifically emphasized by the defendant in this court. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The defendant alleged that F, an employee of F, was not responsible for the defendant because of the occurrence of the instant accident, even though he notified the plaintiff that he would operate the elevator before operating the elevator, because he would not stick out the elevator outside the rail at the time of the increase of the elevator due to the cost of rail support between the floor of the weather observation tower in this case. However, in light of the following circumstances, the defendant's liability ratio 70% of the defendant's liability ratio recognized by the court below is reasonable since he did not look at the witness F's testimony in the statement of the evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, which the court below decided as insufficient evidence, even if he gave up the witness F's testimony in the statement of evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3
According to the video of Gap evidence No. 5, the plaintiff appears to have taken photographs from the above F to the next part of the weather observation tower of this case, and it does not seem to have protruding the photographing equipment.
This is the second step of the weather observation tower in Asia, and it also accords with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the elevator was fixed to the lower direction of the elevator from the time of the rise in order to emphasize its height.
As the defendant asserts, if it is impossible to take photographs while elevator rise due to structural danger of the weather observation tower, the court should have taken measures to prevent accidents by providing information that the equipment would be laid on the floor, etc.
(a) .