2016No819 Injury by occupational negligence

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Defendant

Nos. (Filing of Prosecutions), leaptables (Public Trial)

Suwon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 173 decided March 25, 2016

June 21, 2016

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts);

The defendant has not neglected his duty of care in relation to his duties and has not inflicted any injury on other victims.

2. Determination

A. Where a certain space is provided for business purposes and access to that place becomes possible, a manager of that place shall conduct a reasonable level of inspection to ensure that there is no dangerous condition and remove risks, as well as where it is impossible to remove it due to inevitable circumstances, a manager has the duty of care to warn the customer by means of installing appropriate information signs, etc.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① ○○ Co., Ltd., a business entity dismantling or maintaining a motor vehicle; ② there were many vehicles parked in the site of the vehicle subject to scrapping; and the vehicles seeking repair were parked in the maintenance site through the site where the vehicle subject to scrapping was parked; ② at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the construction was performed for the maintenance by drainage in the said site; ② the construction was conducted for that reason, there was about 1.2m in length, about 1.2m in width, about 1m in depth, about 60cm in depth, and about 60cm in depth; ③ the said site management was conducted.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had not installed a signboard, etc. that warns the danger around the Gu, and 4. The victim's vehicle that had passed the place was damaged by the brain-dead, etc. requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, the victim could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant neglected to perform his duty of care in his/her duties and caused excessive injury to the victim.

C. The Defendant asserts that he fulfilled his duty of care, as shown below, that he took measures to protect customers by means of piling waste and pipes on the Gu stuff as follows. The Defendant fulfilled his duty of care.

However, it is difficult to view that a notice sign installed for the purpose of warning a customer to enter the workplace is "to be at an appropriate level" so that the existence of a danger can be easily concealed, as shown below, so that an appropriate level of warning against the danger is not provided by the mere fact that the vehicle is loaded with an waste cover and pipe in the Gu, as shown below (a person driving a vehicle shall be well examined before and after the vehicle, but it is difficult to expect to watch the floor well, as well as that the waste cover and pipe are not used for warning the existence of a danger).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion that he/she performed his/her duty of care only by putting the waste of the Gu and the pipe.

A person shall be appointed.

The indictment of this case, * does not contain any special explanation on the reason that the Gu is left alone. In principle, the defendant is obliged to remove the Gu ice, and the defendant may install an appropriate level of warning board to the extent that there are special circumstances where leaving the Gu ice alone. To be called an appropriate level of warning board, it shall be pointed out that the phrase (in this case, the word "the same as the fall risk" should be stated) clearly indicating the existence of any danger in the snow on the signboard on the yellow ground, for example, in order to be called an appropriate level of warning board, it shall be stated that the phrase "DNGER" should also be stated if the entry of the foreigner is expected. If the entry of the child is expected, it shall be difficult to deem that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care only by installing a warning board.

D. The Defendant asserts that, as shown in the following photographs, the vehicle was parked in the vehicle that is not an access road to the automobile maintenance shop, so it was difficult for the victim to anticipate access to the vehicle.

A person shall be appointed.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim did not intrude into the controlled area in which access by the customer was not allowed, ② the access road of vehicles entering the area to be repaired and the access space of the vehicle to be repaired was not clearly divided into fences, etc., and ③ the distance between the access road and the Gu, cannot be seen as far as the distance between the access road and the Gu, it is reasonable to view that the defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the victim could have access to the Gu or the Gu. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.)

E. The Defendant asserted that “the injured party’s wife is merely a naturally healing level,” and invoked the Supreme Court Decision 96Do2673 Decided December 23, 1996. However, the above Supreme Court Decision, which is invoked by the Defendant, is not appropriate to invoke the victim’s “the case where the injured party has a hole in the street size of the part left-hand sale requiring approximately one week medical treatment” as in the instant case.

F. In addition, the defendant also pointed out that "the victim visited the place of business of this case at least four times," and that "the defendant was gallebling or rained, not snow at the time of the accident," and that "the defendant was galbling or rained, not snow at the time of the accident." In accordance with Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, "the mistake of fact has affected the judgment."

The reason for appeal can be seen as the reason for appeal. Whether the victim visited several times the place of business of this case does not affect the conclusion of the defendant's negligence. Thus, the defendant's argument pointing out that the victim's frequency of visit is not more than twice but not less than four times cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

Furthermore, the argument that "the snow rain or rain was found at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, not snow at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case," also cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. However, even if the snow rain or rain was found, it is the same as it is difficult for the victim to discover the Gu ice, even if the snow rain or rain was found out ( even if the snow rain was clear, it seems that it was difficult for the victim who is driving the vehicle to find the Gu ice, in light of the size and condition of the Gu ice, when considering the size and condition of the vehicle ice, it is also pointed out that it is difficult for the victim who is driving

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "the first page of the judgment of the court below shall be the representative director among the column of criminal facts", "○○" and "which shall be corrected to delete each section."

Judges Sung-ho et al.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Hak-chan

1) This is about the place where the customer who uses the department store was involved in the accident in the next remote space where access to the department store was permitted.

If the management is neglected, it is the same that the department store shall be responsible for it. In this case, the department store shall be responsible for it.

It is natural that other customers cannot be exempted from liability on the ground that they did not have access to the area.