logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나56479
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 52,528,559 against the Plaintiff and its related costs from March 28, 2017 to February 6, 2020.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a corporation entrusted with industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D concrete pumps (hereinafter “instant vehicles”).

E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) accepted a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction among the aforementioned new construction works from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) that received a contract for the F ground G construction in Naju, and H purchased industrial accident compensation insurance for workers at the said workplace.

E leased the instant vehicle driven by C for concrete building works among the above reinforced concrete construction works, and J around March 1, 2016, the instant vehicle was paid daily wages from E and worked on the construction site.

At around 15:45 on March 7, 2016, I, a driver of the instant vehicle, was using the instant vehicle in the instant G site to remove retaining wall concrete from the first floor underground, and moved the instant vehicle to another place. When moving the location of a concrete pumps vehicle, I, a driver of the instant vehicle, was obligated to install a support stand on the short ground so that the vehicle does not move due to ground subsidence, etc., or reinforces the ground with blag, and neglected to install a support stand on the top of the India where the ground is weak, and the lower end of the support stand down below the lower end of the support stand behind the instant vehicle, and thus the instant vehicle was destroyed by the balance and was managed from the fence of the instant vehicle on the opposite side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “remoted person”) and caused the vehicle to dump and dump to the contamination level.

arrow