beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this Court’s judgment on the main defense of Defendant I Company is that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is by the main text
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. At the time of the instant accident, Defendant J could have predicted that the deceased could enter the land within the working group of the excavated season at the time of the instant accident, but did not have a dump truck and sufficient separation distance in the course of returning the excavated machine to the port, and the instant accident occurred on the wind to the right without waiting the back back. Defendant J is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the said negligence.
C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant J moved back the part of the excavated engine to the left side of the driver’s standard in order to take back the remaining wastes into the dump truck in order to cover the construction wastes, and then check the back. After the completion of the dump truck, the deceased was at the right side of the excavated part to the right side of the excavated part to look back to the original location. It can be acknowledged that the accident of this case occurred by entering the excavated machine and dump truck.
In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the above facts and the evidence revealed as follows: ① Defendant J appears to have occurred a considerable shorter time from the time when Defendant J has completed the duty of follow-up care to the right side of the excavated part.