2018Na5949 Damage (as defined)

1. Kim○-○

2. Hyo; and

3. Ma○○.

4. Jink ○○

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Law Firm ○○, Attorney Yoon-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. A stock company;

2. B

A person shall be appointed.

4. Ma○○.

5. Entrusted ○○.

Defendant 3 through 5 (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

○, Kim Jong-han

6. Du○○.

7. Maximum○○.

8. Ansan-○

Defendant 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8’s attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Da230387 Decided June 28, 2018

February 28, 2019

March 21, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff Kim ○○, 10, 251, 675 won, and Plaintiff 1, 200

○ KRW 10,00,000, KRW 10,59, 635, and KRW 10,000,000 to Plaintiff Jeong-○, and KRW 10,00,00 to Plaintiff Jin-○; and

5% per annum for each of the above money from May 20, 2017 to the service date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the following:

D. The 15% interest per annum shall be paid from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following additions.

A. The 7th 15th 15th am the plaintiffs asserted only the tort under Article 750 of the Civil Code, but deleted.

B. According to the circumstances, etc. described above 8th of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that there was intentional or gross negligence that neglected the management and supervision duty to Defendant C, Ma○○, and Ma○○○. It is difficult to view that the above Defendants are obliged to take safety measures against the instant site beyond the management and supervision duty, and thus, it cannot be held liable for tort or liability under the State Compensation Act against the said Defendants.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jae-han

Judges branch line