beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2015나24729

구상금

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Defendant A is the owner and driver of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share.

B. C around 11:00 on August 22, 201, 201, at the time of the installation of steel frame by E Co., Ltd. (the business owner F; hereinafter “E”) located in the construction site of steel frame (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”), with the sniff beam of the h beam along the pole and the pole installed at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”), suffered an injury from cutting the 5th left left-hand balance between the sniff beam and the h beam, by inserting the sniff beam driven by Defendant A.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

As an insurance benefit under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with respect to occupational accidents caused by the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid C KRW 20,01,01,010, totaling KRW 8,968,050 of temporary layoff benefits from November 8, 2011 to July 12, 2012, medical care benefits of KRW 5,027,840, disability benefits of KRW 6,022,50.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, at the time of the accident of this case, C was engaged in the fixing of the beam beamline by the air of this case at the time of the accident of this case, and as such, Defendant A was negligent in getting the snive beamline of this case and the snive beamline of this case, even though he had a duty of care not to open the snive beam until the work is completed.

In addition, the accident of this case occurred while using the term of this case in accordance with its usage. Thus, the defendant A as the owner and driver of the term of this case, barring special circumstances, is the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.