beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,936,638 as well as 5% per annum from April 24, 2013 to June 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 2013, Nonparty E, the actual owner of Nonparty D’s housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) and Nonparty D’s land (hereinafter “the instant housing”) contracted to the Defendant, who was introduced by Nonparty F, the lessee of the said housing, for the construction work replacing the roof of the said housing from cement machines and sand site position panel (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
B. The Defendant: (a) requested G, who was known to the general public, to perform the instant construction; (b) from April 24, 2013, G had several copies, including the Plaintiff, carried out the instant construction.
C. However, on April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was listed on the roof of the instant house and was engaged in the work to prevent booms between the printing teams during the instant construction works, fells from the printing team and fells on the ground below approximately 3 meters, and suffered injury, such as “alleys of the solar frame.”
(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.
Meanwhile, the instant construction work was completed for three days, and the Defendant received KRW 8.5 million for the instant construction work from E on April 29, 2013, which was after the completion of the instant construction work.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the branch number), witness G, and H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant contracted the construction of this case from the owner of the housing of this case and carried out the construction of this case. The defendant did not have safety measures such as the installation of a safety net in relation to the construction of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above accident.
As to this, the defendant is not in the position of the user of the plaintiff as a mere agent of the Corporation, and the accident of this case is also in his own discretion.