logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.26 2015가단519599
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in goods transport business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that carries containers on cargo ships or loads from cargo ships by using caters at a container wharf located in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant wharf”).

B. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) sent the instant wharf with a container connected to the Tractor (B); (b) sent the signal that the Plaintiff released the container and the device (Contac) fixing the Tractor; (c) the Defendant’s employees cracing the container into the said container as Tractor; (d) the container was displayed on the lower part of the container; and (e) the container was not separated from the container; and (e) the accident was caused by the difference between the Tracor and the Tractor (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant violated the duty to prepare a work plan for loading and unloading of containers in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof, and did not prepare a means to communicate with the Crain driver in urgent circumstances during Crain work. At the time of the instant accident, Crain driver entered the container without properly verifying whether the Crain driver was separated from the container.

Since the instant accident occurred due to the mistake of the Defendant and the employees of the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the total amount of KRW 38,820,338, such as the Track 32,000,000, and the lost profit 6,820,338, which is the damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the said accident.

3. We examine each of the negligence alleged by the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant is in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

arrow