logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.09.29 2016나50444
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On February 22, 2015, the Plaintiff got kne-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based knee-based

(2) The defendant shall be the managing authority of the waterworks in which the above accident occurred.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 9, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, there is a defect in management and installation in the water supply at the site of the accident of this case, so the news block is cut off, and the plaintiff suffered bodily injury, and the defendant, who is the managing authority of the water supply at the site of this accident, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability is limited to the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s access to the site of the instant accident by using a storm report at the site of the instant accident, i.e., the Plaintiff’s access to the site of the instant accident at the site of the instant accident; the Plaintiff’s access to the site of the instant accident at 4:0 p.m.; the Plaintiff was lower than 4:0 p.m. when entering the site of the instant accident; there was no other obstacle to view the view; the news block was exposed outside the water pool, and it was easily known that the normal walking is difficult by way of blocking the water pool due to exposure to the part of the site of the instant accident. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s access from the opposite side as argued by the Plaintiff, there was an indication of blocking access by snow inserting and def. However, in light of the size of the pool, it is sufficient to indicate the Plaintiff’s access road.

arrow