logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.20 2017나24252
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following additional judgments as to the argument in the trial are added. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As the judgment of the court of first instance on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff leased the crane from D along with a driver.

Even if the Defendant used the cream leased by the Plaintiff in performing the instant construction work, and among them, directly participated in the location of the Defendant’s site manager, and the instant accident was caused by the mistake installed in a weak place on the ground, which led to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the cream. Therefore, the Plaintiff who paid compensation for the expenses for repair of the cream due to the damages can claim for the amount of compensation for the Defendant who is in the status of the Plaintiff’s performance assistant or employee.

B. In full view of the records of No. 34 and Gap evidence No. 41’s video, witness C, and F’s testimony, the accident of this case is acknowledged as having occurred due to the relationship with the ground established on the ground of the powder, which was used in the construction of this case.

Furthermore, in order to recognize the defendant's responsibility for compensation as alleged by the plaintiff, C, a field manager of the defendant at the time, was involved in taking the location of the installation of a crane through specific work instructions.

Despite the location to direct and supervise a safe ground, the circumstances should be recognized.

However, evidence corresponding thereto, although evidence No. 40 was written, it is difficult to believe that theO, which had not been present at the site of the accident at the time of the accident, contained the circumstances of the accident from other employees, and it is difficult for theO to believe it as it is.

arrow