logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.06.09 2014가단25194
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant Pakistan: (a) KRW 7,803,680 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 20, 2014 to June 9, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2014, around 08:40, the Plaintiff, while getting on and driving a bicycle owned by the Plaintiff, was an accident that happens due to the shock of the damage from the surrounding part of the telecommunications holes installed on the said road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as cageage 3 cage cage cage cages, etc., which require four weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s bicycle and clothing

C. The instant road is the road managed by Defendant Pju City, and the above communications Mandole, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant K”) installed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Since the road of this case is managed by the defendant Pju-si, the defendant Pju-si is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the defects in the construction and management of the road of this case.

B. As to the Defendant Company’s case, the Defendant Company, who installed the above Telecommunication Manle, was an accident caused by the failure to repair it through a regular inspection in advance, and thus, the Defendant Company is entirely responsible for the Defendant Company’s case, and the Plaintiff asserts that it is not responsible for the Defendant Company’s case. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant Company, who installed the above Telecommunication Manle, is also responsible for the installation and management of structures

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, the responsibility to manage the installation or preservation of a structure cannot be recognized in Defendant KK in light of evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings. Thus, the above assertion at the time of the Plaintiff and Defendant Pakistan cannot be accepted.

(1) The cause of the instant accident is the front lids from the above telecommunications system and the front lids from the roads in the vicinity thereof.

arrow