logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.25 2016가단503646
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 5,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from December 8, 2014 to May 25, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C, an employee of Defendant Gung-dong Ship Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Gung-dong Ship”) operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Gung-dong”), was driving a Fk-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cutting the body at the bottom of the mouth, cutting the bones of elbows, cutting the bones of the bones of blue, and strekeing the internal side streke, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition as the ground for the occurrence of liability, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act. Defendant B is the employer of Defendant C, and is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident under Article 756 of the Civil Act, which caused Defendant C to the Plaintiff with respect to the execution of its business. Defendant Dong Dongdong Ship actually has the workplace where the instant accident occurred. Defendant Dongdong Ship was the owner of the instant vehicle, and was negligent in failing to exercise his duty to conduct safety education or to urge the driver to pay attention to the safety driving. Thus, Defendant C is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident as a tort under Article 750 of the

B. Limit of liability, however, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including branch numbers), the workplace in which the instant accident occurred is frequently conducted, and the plaintiff is expected to move to another place.

arrow