logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.28 2016가단241617
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,836,440 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff, a company running a business of construction of reinforced concrete, purchased the NAP4012, which was manufactured by the Defendant on June 2014.

B. At around 08:30 on June 17, 2016, C, an employee of the Plaintiff, was crashed with the part of the bridge of this case while working on the bridge of this case on the bridge of this case, and sustained injury, such as the right shouldering, and the corresponding damage.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid 46,836,440 won to C as damages caused by the instant accident.

On the other hand, on September 1, 2014, the Defendant comprehensively transferred all the rights and obligations regarding the project including the manufacture of a bridge to the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, 12 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s accident occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the instant bridge that did not meet safety and durability. Thus, the Defendant, as the manufacturer of the instant bridge, shall compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant accident under the Product Liability Act.

B. There is no ground to recognize the occurrence of the instant accident itself by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

In addition, since the instant bridge was manufactured and supplied by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Defendant is not subject to product liability.

Furthermore, there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the Plaintiff on the instant bridge, and the Plaintiff uses the instant bridge as it does not conform to the purpose of its use.

Since the accident of this case occurred, the defendant is not liable for damages under the Product Liability Act.

3. Determination

A. A manufacturer who manufactures and sells one product liability established for product liability shall be at the time of distribution in terms of the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the product.

arrow