logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.12.05 2018가단70902
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Defendant I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Co., Ltd. on the principal safety defense is unlawful as the Defendant’s claim is not acceptable.

However, in litigation for performance, the defendant company's defense has no merit since the plaintiff's standing to be the person who asserted as the performance obligor.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) On April 12, 2017, Defendant J had the victim’s head loaded a dump truck at the right side of the excavated machine while carrying out the work using the excavated machine at the site of the “nump L shop construction work” located in K at the time of leisure, and caused n to the back of the excavated machine before the dump truck. Accordingly, the victim’s head was faced with a dump truck.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) The N died on April 12, 2017 due to brain damage and blood transfusion caused by two sides before April 14:42, 2017.

(3) The father of the network N (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff B is his mother, and the Plaintiff C and D are the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff E, F, G, and H are the siblings of the deceased.

(4) Defendant J was indicted on the charge of occupational injury resulting from the instant accident, but was rendered not guilty on April 27, 2018 (No. 2017Gadan1771), and the Prosecutor’s appeal on the said judgment was dismissed on October 30, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 11, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Defendant J could have predicted that the deceased could enter the place within the working group of the excavated machine at the time of the instant accident, and thus, Defendant J did not send any signal to the deceased who neglected his/her duty to examine whether there is a person between the excavated machine and the dump truck, despite the fact that he/she has a duty to do so.

arrow