logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.10.08 2014나123
손해배상(자) 등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 57,33,958 won against each of the Defendants A and its related thereto from February 14, 2012 to February 2014.

Reasons

1) Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E”)

) A company is engaged in the maritime and port transport business and is network G (H students, hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

Defendant E’s staff is Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) within the Han River Port located in Handong-gu, Handong-gu, Jeju-do, at around 17:00 on February 14, 2012.

(B) Defendant D also had I to check the identification number of the container unloaded from the depository and around that time, Defendant E’s employees of Defendant E (hereinafter “this case’s vehicle”).

(B) In the process of unloading a container loaded on a cargo vehicle and loading an empty container into a cargo vehicle, Defendant D did not have a construction operator’s license. (2) Defendant D did not regard the deceased who confirmed the unique number of the container laid down by Defendant D due to negligence in the course of unloading the container of this case on board the container. (3) Defendant D did not have a construction operator’s license.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident.” The Deceased was killed on the spot due to the cardiopulmonary stop due to the fluoring of the chest part of the said accident.

3) Defendant D paid KRW 23,00,000 to the Plaintiffs in his criminal trial. 4) The Plaintiff is the father of the Deceased, the mother of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff C is the mother of the Deceased.

Defendant F is a person registered as the owner of the instant fork owner, and Samsung F is a person who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with Defendant F with regard to the instant fork owner.

[Reasons for Recognition] According to the above-mentioned facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant D is prohibited from driving his/her vehicle without a license to drive it, and the location of the deceased when he/she becomes to drive it.

arrow