logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.08.21 2018나31080
손해배상(자)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant, while driving a Done Star Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) owned by C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and driving a parking lot located on the sixth underground floor of the building in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, the Defendant shocked the safety board installed on the access wall on the back side of the instant vehicle’s left side.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). B.

Due to the instant accident, the instant vehicle was destroyed to cover KRW 1,602,841 of the repair cost, and the said safety board was destroyed to cover KRW 165,000 of the repair cost.

C. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,602,841 to C as damages for the instant accident and KRW 165,000 to E management body, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since the plaintiff compensates the defendant for the damages caused by the accident of this case to C and E management body according to the employer's responsibility, the defendant who is an employee is liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances. 2) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff exempted the defendant from the liability for the compensation amount due to the accident of this case, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In a case where one employer becomes liable for damages as an employer due to a tort committed by an employee in relation to the performance of his/her duties, the above right to indemnity is reasonable in light of the principle of good faith in light of all the circumstances, including the nature and scale of the business, situation of the business facility, details of the employee’s work, working conditions or attitude, situation of the harmful act, degree of employer’s consideration as to the prevention of harmful act or the distribution of losses.

arrow