beta
Text
1. Defendant E and F jointly share KRW 58,580,650, and KRW 1 million for each of the Plaintiff E and C and each of them.
Reasons
1. Existence of liability for damages
A. 1) On March 30, 2016, Plaintiff A was on the part of Plaintiff A, at the site of the construction work for the clan clan clan clan (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at the time of residence on March 30, 2016, and was on the part of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B and C were children of Plaintiff B and C.
B) Defendant D clan (hereinafter “Defendant D clan”)
(C) On December 25, 2015, Defendant E is the owner of the instant construction work. Defendant E is the constructor who performed the instant construction work after being awarded a subcontract from Defendant E for the processing and assembly of timber from the main body and main body of the instant construction work, and employed the Plaintiff, etc. on or around December 30, 2016, with the construction cost of KRW 245 million and the construction period from December 25, 2015 to June 2016. D) Defendant F is the constructor who performed the instant construction work after being awarded a subcontract from Defendant E for the processing and assembly of timber from the main body and main body of the instant construction work, and after being employed by the Plaintiff, etc. on or around December 2015.
In the vision, there was a lack of safety launch plate and temporary wooden projected, but there was an accident that Plaintiff A fell on the ground as the temporary launch plate was sleeped by Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff A fell on the ground.
(3) On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff A received hospitalized treatment until April 19, 2016 due to the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (In the instant case, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in the instant case by not later than 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 3, 4, 9 evidence A, witness H’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. As to Defendant 1’s clan, the Plaintiffs asserted that “The Defendant clan was liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident, since it did not perform its safety management duty as the contractor of the instant construction work.”
According to the fact-finding results on the permanent address of this court, the defendant clan is the owner of the instant construction.