(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나1786 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나1786

구상금

Text

1. Upon the request of the plaintiff expanded in the trial, paragraph 1 of the order of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning the above part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following, according to the expansion of the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim in the trial, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3, 5 and 6 "14,45,740 won up to August 20, 2014" are "14,850,170 won up to May 13, 2015 (including medical care benefit expenses that seek additional reimbursement at the trial)."

Part 3: “A evidence No. 11” is added to “based grounds for recognition” in Part 7.

2. The defendant's liability for damages

A. The parties' assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the defects in the construction or preservation of the new storage place of this case, the defendant asserts that there is no defect in the installation and preservation of the new storage place of this case or there is no causation between the defect and the accident in this case.

B. The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its intended purpose. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and the custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da16328, Oct. 28, 1994; 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Even if an accident occurred from a structure, unless there are special circumstances, if the accident occurred as a result of an exceptional behavior not in compliance with the ordinary usage of the structure, the installer and the custodian of the structure is not obliged to take protective measures against such accident.

Supreme Court Decision 198.8

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 10. 28. 선고 94다16328 판결

-대법원 2010. 2. 11. 선고 2008다61615 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나63042

-대법원 2006. 1. 26. 선고 2004다21053 판결

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.09.21 2016가단121091

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.26 2014나20461

-대법원 1998. 1. 23. 선고 97다25118 판결