logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.11 2015가단5304320
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 2014, around 08:30 on the 3rd floor of the Gu Government-si, the lower part of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 3rd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor, and the 2nd unit of the 2

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 66,190,000 to G for damages arising from the instant accident in accordance with the insurance contract concluded with the said E (including the security for the liability of the facility owner).

C. From April 2014 to May 1, 2014, Defendant A is a man-tegyer who performs interior works of “DIS” and installed the said sewage pipeline, etc., and Defendant B is a man-tegyer who completed the said pipeline construction works of “Furterology” hospital after Defendant A completed the said pipeline construction.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence Nos. 1, Eul No. 5-1, 2, Eul No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant A’s tort.

In accordance with the damage evaluation report on the instant accident prepared by the Korea Damage Evaluation Corporation, the fall from the sewage pipe spawn part, which directly caused the instant accident, was not installed in the relevant part (see attached Form 1, e.g., “product tax information”) and was caused by failure to tank the underground load of the pipe. Although Defendant A’s pipeline construction followed Defendant A’s pipeline construction, Defendant B continued the artificial spawn part of the second floor. However, it is difficult to view that at the time, the said pipe was in a situation likely to interfere with the said construction, in light of the structure of the said spawn part.

arrow