208 Gaz. 4110 Damages

1. P1 (28 Years and Females);

2. P2 (Year 56 Life and Female)

3. P3 (P3. 59 Years and Females)

4. P4(63 years old, South Korea)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

D Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Jeong-man, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kang-soo

October 22, 2008

October 29, 2008

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff P1 an annual amount of KRW 100,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 300,000 for each of them from December 15, 2007 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 5% for each of them from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

Nonparty A (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was working in the G window Dok and retail chain operated by Nonparty B, but around 15:00 on December 15, 2007, Nonparty A and Nonparty A, together with Nonparty A and B, died due to brain destruction, scarf, scarf, and scarf, scarfying off the balcony at Busan Jin-gu, to additionally install the balcony glass in order to install the balcony at hand. In addition, at around 15:0 on December 15, 2007, he installed a window (such as electric equipment, etc.) in the balcony rail by combining it with the wire line, and operated it, thereby cutting off approximately 132 km from the ground to the balcony with the weight of approximately 15 km up to the 15th floor.

[Reasons for Recognition: omitted]

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(a) Contents of the assertion;

The regulations on the housing construction standards, etc. provide that a rail can be installed in a safe structure. However, unlike the installation purpose, a rail is frequently used in the same work as in this case, unlike the above installation purpose, and the fall accident in the apartment rail leads to death, it shall be installed in such a way that can lead to a serious fault exceeding the limit that can be delivered to a rail through general home life. In addition, the defendant installed a rail without sufficiently considering safety such as heavy rain, etc., which should be considered as above, and the defendant installed a rail in the way that a rail can be cut down in the form that can be cut down in the mouth of the pole. Thus, the defendant is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiffs P1 and his siblings, who are the mother of the deceased, due to the above accident.

B. Determination

Article 18(1) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction provides that a building or a rail installed in a housing complex shall be installed in a safe structure using reinforced concrete, robbery, and fireproof materials. However, a balcony rail is installed in order to prevent the fall of residents, etc. as a safe studs, and in the event that a balcony spawn is carried out by using equipment such as a window, etc., it is necessary to fix a window at a solid place with no risk of escape so that it can withstanding the load, and as seen above, it is difficult to find that the deceased installed a window in a balcony and 132 km glass, which was 132 km in a balcony, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the storm spawn and the deceased’s spawn's spawn's spath and the deceased’s 6th spawn's spawn's spawn's spawn's spawn's st.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judge Choi Jong-in

Judges Nam Sung-woo