logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단1155
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had a bicycle around 14:10, and passed the C Corporation site at the time when he/she was engaged in the Defendant’s construction. The bicycle wheels exceeded the place where he/she was placed with soil as a boomer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as a drilling signboard escape certificate, spin electric brate, and verte base, which require medical treatment for 12 weeks, and had undergone verte surgery two times, and had not operated properly until now.

The bicycle lane was originally constructed at the construction site, but the defendant was installed at the construction site, and the plaintiff entered the construction site where the above construction site had not been properly repaired and caused the above injury. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred by the plaintiff for KRW 10,342,090 as well as KRW 30,000 as compensation for damages caused by the above accident.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's above assertion is that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act. Therefore, it is examined as to whether the plaintiff suffered damages due to the defect in the establishment or preservation of the C Corporation at the time of official order, or due to the defendant's intentional or negligent act.

B. In full view of the description of evidence No. 11, witness evidence No. 11, testimony of the witness D, and the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination, the facts that the Plaintiff was boarding the bicycle on October 1, 2016 to November 2016 and going beyond C in the city of official city (hereinafter “the accident in this case”), and the bicycle lane was initially packed on the river side, but the Defendant removed the existing bicycle lane as the Defendant had had the river embankment constructed, and the Defendant: (a) he stored a embankment between farmland in C and riverine while performing the above embankment; and (b) the Plaintiff was getting on the said dam.

arrow