logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단5081484
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant Gangwon-do City Gas Co., Ltd., and I jointly do 500,000 won to Plaintiff A, respectively, and 500,000 won to Plaintiff B and C.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Gangwon-do City Gas Co., Ltd. and I

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Defendant I is Defendant Gangwon-do City Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Gangwon-do City Gas").

(2) On May 2, 201, on the ground of gas erosion around 16:30 on May 2, 201, Defendant I expressed a desire to the Plaintiff A by a third party, who was in front of the front of the gas meter behind the housing building, and Defendant I expressed a desire to the Plaintiff A to report 112. Accordingly, Defendant I expressed a desire to the Plaintiff A while taking a bath to the Plaintiff, his head and the shoulder part of the Plaintiff A’s chest part of the head and the shoulder part of the Plaintiff’s chest were used several times, and thereby, Plaintiff A suffered a bodily injury by facing the wall by leaving the right shoulder part of the Plaintiff’s wall.

3) While Plaintiff A was written, Plaintiff B, who was the wife immediately behind Plaintiff A, was faced with the wall, and was faced with the wall. 4) The Plaintiffs suffered enormous mental pain due to Defendant I’s intrusion upon the Plaintiffs’ residence without permission, Defendant A’s desire to the Plaintiff, and the tort inflicted an injury on Plaintiff A and B.

Therefore, Defendant I is obligated to pay consolation money (Plaintiff A 15,00,000, Plaintiff B, and C 7,500,000 won) to the Plaintiffs as compensation for tort. Defendant Gangwon-do City Gas is obligated to pay consolation money in collaboration with Defendant I in accordance with the employer liability provision under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged as to Defendant I’s claim 1-1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 3, 5, 7, 9-1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15-1, 2, 16-1, 16-4 and 16-1 through 4, and the overall purport of each of the arguments by Defendant I and Defendant I, as a whole, on the grounds that Defendant I, who caused gas invasion, conducted urban gas inspection around May 16, 201, around 30:30.

arrow