logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.10.19 2015가단217470
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Samju-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Teo-si Construction”) had subcontracted from the Twitju-si General Housing Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sable Housing Construction”) to cover the Plaintiff’s domestic workers’ disaster security insurance regarding reinforced concrete construction from among the “New Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Construction”) to February 28, 2014. B from the construction of Heung-si General Housing Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Stju-si”) to build a string of underground columns in the instant construction work, after receiving a subcontract for installation, lease, and dismantling of the instant construction work, he/she had the driver of another parking lot under his/her jurisdiction install a string of underground columns in the instant construction work. (c) Around March 16, 2013, a driver of another workplace affiliated with the Defendant under his/her command undergo a signal signal from the construction site of the instant construction work at the site of the construction work at issue, and subject to the Defendant’s installation of the instant string.

(B) In the process of decommissioninging in the beam, the part of the lower part of the beam, which was caused by the instant cream because the instant cream was not stopped from time to time, and C, which was lower than 3 meters by the upper part of the cream in the wind where the cream is falling from the upper part (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(D) The instant accident suffered injury, such as double frames, and received insurance proceeds of KRW 43,00,000 from the Plaintiff. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6-4, and 6-5], and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to operate the instant cler without immediately stopping the instant cler, notwithstanding the signal signal stoped by the signaler B while the driver of the instant cler was dismantled at the beam of the instant clert.

arrow