logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.09.06 2015가단44989
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), the non-party D (hereinafter "the deceased") is the deceased's spouse, and the deceased's children are the deceased's children, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the deceased's and the deceased's children are the manager of the bridge of this case, at around 18:00 on August 19, 2014, he/she sits on a bridge of 5.60 meters in width and 2.26 meters in length (hereinafter "the bridge of this case") with a width of 2 meters, height of 2 meters, and 10cm in depth (hereinafter "the farm road of this case").

Luxembourg The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their inheritors due to the accident of this case, since the plaintiff, who constructed and manages the bridge installed on the instant farmland and the farm road, and who passed through the bridge at the time of the construction of the original bridge, has a duty to maintain and manage the bridge in order to prevent the fall on the farm road, and if the rail of the bridge was installed, he has a duty to continuously maintain and manage the bridge so as not to be damaged and lost, due to the negligence that the person walking through the bridge was negligent in neglecting the risk of falling on the bridge from the bridge to the farm road without any loss, and the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case where the plaintiff passed through the bridge of this case and died as the farm road, and therefore, the accident of this case caused the accident of this case,

The Plaintiffs are the occupants or owners of the instant bridge or farm roads, which are tort liability or structures pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act following the violation of the duty to take safety measures against the Defendant, pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act due to defects in the installation or preservation thereof.

arrow