logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.15 2015나2060854
채무부존재확인
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

However, the following judgments are added to the defendants' arguments.

[The Defendant’s net C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

(A) On May 24, 2016, the court below held that the Defendants died on May 24, 2016 while the trial was pending, and that the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, took over the lawsuit, and all of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, "the Defendant" was changed to "the deceased," and added on February 2.

A. The Defendants asserted that: (a) the safety net or user produced by non-accum-corrosion or a protective glass, etc. in the vicinity of the heat generated therefrom did not automatically stop the operation or set up a license to weak the heat.

Article 3 (1) of the Public Health Control Act, Article 2 [Attached Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Ⅱ. 2.b.

According to this, in the event that a heater is installed in a public bath room, he/she shall install a safe net of heat and incombustible materials around it.

However, according to the above evidence, in the case of cooking boxes or the wall, a heat is installed in the form of string, and on the front, a safety net in the shape of the water is installed, and around that, a safety net in the quality of wooden materials is installed.

These facilities do not seem to be inconsistent with the standards for heat equipment and facilities prescribed by the Public Health Control Act.

In addition, it is difficult to find any ground to view that the Plaintiffs are obliged to install additional facilities as claimed by the Defendants.

In addition, the circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above, such as ① G using in-house cooking box with the deceased was not located at all, and ② the deceased was used at least 30 minutes in-house cooking box, etc., due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the safety net around the string of the instant accident caused by images on both sides of the bridge.

arrow