logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.05.18 2015가합103313
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is a person who operates construction business, etc. under the trade name of F, and the network G (hereinafter “the network”) is a person who has been engaged in construction machinery contracting and leasing business under the trade name of H.

B. On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered the Defendant to install automatic gas station facilities and ancillary construction within the J gas station located in Yannam-gu, Yandong-gu (hereinafter “instant gas station”); and (b) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against C&S energy; and (c) withdrawn on October 20, 2015, from October 25, 2014.

C. On November 18, 2014, the Deceased was at the same construction site on November 13:56, 2014, and was engaged in the removal work of a gas station fluor’s fluor’s husium (hereinafter “the removal work of this case”). While the said fluor went to the port, he was faced with an accident where the fluor was pushed away from the door and fluor’s body head was tight down (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

The Deceased was sent to an emergency room in a college hospital, and was treated, but died at around 18:17 on the same day.

E. Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 5 video and the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties concerned as to Gap evidence 5 were employed by the defendant and provided labor according to the defendant's work instruction. Thus, labor contract relations exists between the deceased and the defendant.

At the time of the removal of the instant case, there was a concern for workers to be dangerous due to the removal of sckes.

The defendant, the user, was negligent in the duty of care to induce sckes, and conduct safety education related to sckes operation to the deceased so that safety accidents do not occur.

The defendant is due to the accident of this case.

arrow