logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.06.10 2015가단4313
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) produced concrete aggregate (recongested) and supplied it to Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. to Jongno-gu Seoul Construction Site B.

While the Plaintiff-owned C concrete pumps (hereinafter “instant pumps”) waiting at the construction site, influoring and burning the said concrete aggregates, were discharged in the shape of “1” in length from the instant pumps at approximately 35 cm.

The waste pipe of this case is included in the concrete aggregate produced by the Defendant, and was mixed in the pumps of this case, and thereby, the inside part of the pumps of this case and pipes was destroyed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to the repair cost incurred by mixing the waste hall of this case, KRW 20,680,000, and damages for delay.

2. In order to recognize liability for damages caused by tort, a harmful act caused by the perpetrator’s intentional or negligent act must exist and thereby the victim’s damage should be caused, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the damage should be found, the victim shall assert and prove such fact.

The testimony of Gap evidence 5, 7, and 9, Gap evidence 4, and witness D alone are mixed with concrete aggregate produced by the defendant in light of the following opposing circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the non-permanent steel officer of this case entered the pipe of the pumps of this case and caused damage equivalent to 20,680,000 won in total due to the destruction of double pla of the pumps of this case, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff applied for the witness E after the closing of the argument in this case. However, the plaintiff asserted the existence of the above witness when the plaintiff did not make an application for about one year from the time of the institution of the lawsuit in this case.

arrow