logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가합511561
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 228,933,734 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 31, 2015 to January 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is a local government, which is the managing body of the Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 258 Olympic Noise and Vibration (hereinafter “No. 258 Olympic Games”), which is a public structure, and the Defendant is a local government that is the managing body of the Han River Exclusive Road. Pursuant to the law to which a local government is a party, the Defendant is a company that performed the construction works of the Central T. Track Road (hereinafter “No. 3”) by being awarded a contract from the Plaintiff

B. On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted the instant construction with the removal of the existing protective wall and the installation of a new protective wall in order to prevent conflict between the protective wall and the monthly fence in the upper bridge, as the structure where the Han River bicycle road is installed under the bridge, and the central protective wall collision and the monthly fence by the traffic vehicle was frequently occurred in the upper bridge. (ii) On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to remove the existing protective wall and install a new protective wall in order to prevent the collision and the monthly fence in the above old road.

3) In removing existing protective walls and installing plastic safety facilities temporarily watering on the ground of the instant construction process, the Defendant Company A failed to take any safety measures without neglecting his/her duty of care to control the number of persons below the bridge or to prevent accidents caused by falling water by installing a safety net, etc., on June 21, 2012, because there is a bicycle-only road passing through the general public and the temporary plastic safety facilities installed under the bridge are at risk of falling short at the intervals between the bridge. Accordingly, the Defendant A was not negligent in taking safety measures, despite the fact that he/she has a duty of care to prevent the accidents caused by falling water. 4) B, around 15:07, when he/she loaded a bicycle-only road under the upper bridge, he/she is shocked on the head of the plastic safety facilities located at the 49km away from the bridge.

arrow