logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가합19640
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for the construction of “the construction of a special and special installation of a common exclusive line (or a common exclusive line) located underground from the Plaintiff’s substation facilities located in Sinpo-dong 489-7, Sinpo-dong 489-7, which is a construction for underground transmission lines connected to the outside of the Plaintiff’s substation facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. From February 24, 2017 pursuant to the above contract, the Defendant excavated the road and laid underground transmission lines on the underground. On March 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) performed crushinging the business of an enterprise bank (hereinafter “instant accident site”); (b) contacted the existing transmission lines laid underground (hereinafter “instant transmission lines”); (c) thereby, the instant transmission lines were damaged and the price was set.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant confirmed the location of the transmission line of this case through the drawing of underground cables in the course of performing the construction of this case. The part where the transmission line of this case was installed and its surrounding areas had the duty of care to excavate and excavate it with the machine after securing the view of view, not through the excavation by using the machine, until the discovery of the transmission line of this case by means of manpower excavation, not through the excavation by using the machine. The plaintiff or his employees entrusted by the plaintiff as a net crew had the duty of care to perform excavation while attending the site.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated such duty of care, and excavated machines around the transmission line, which are not excavation of human resources, and ② the instant construction work was conducted without the presence of Plaintiff A.

arrow