logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016나49723
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as stated in the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance as follows, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a local government that has a duty of care to manage and supervise the owner and the contractor for the prevention of safety accidents in the construction work. However, during the instant construction work, Defendant SP Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) had failed to perform the removal work without appointing a supervisor for the instant construction work. While the supervisor for the instant construction was not appointed, Defendant SPP Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), and did not provide the design plan for public toilets to be removed to the Defendant Co., Ltd. and did not explain the structure.

Therefore, since the accident of this case was caused by the above mistake of Defendant Sacheon-si, Defendant Sacheon-si, and thus, Defendant Sacheon-si is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

B. According to each of the records of evidence No. 21, evidence No. 21, and evidence No. 30-4 and No. 5, Defendant Sacheon-si did not designate a project supervisor, but made the instant construction to be implemented. Defendant Sacheon-si did not receive the design drawings of the public toilet building to be removed from Defendant Sacheon-si, nor received the explanation of the structure thereof.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the obligation to take specific and direct safety measures to prevent risks such as the instant accident at a construction site, is borne by the Defendant Company, the contractor, and the Defendant Sacheon-si, the contractor, who is merely the contractor, takes such safety measures.

arrow