logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.08.28 2017가단512630
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 140 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from May 3, 2017 to August 28, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition, etc.;

A. On December 2014, the Plaintiff engaged in the delivery cargo business purchased D EM vehicles manufactured by C from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) from the Defendant.

B. On June 14, 2016, around 11:21, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) withdrawn the extended structure of the instant vehicle from the vehicle to the lower end; (b) contacted the second floor height of the instant vehicle; and (c) fell and was damaged by the connecting part of the train and the extended structure during the operation of electrical distribution at the work unit; and (d) suffered injury, such as damage to the cerebral cerebrs of less than the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

1) The instant vehicle was manufactured by altering the loading of cargo vehicles to 1.2 tons and installing a accusation room. The accusation room consisting of work units, extended structures, chassiss, etc., which connects the load to the upper and lower frame. The instant vehicle was safety certification by limiting the maximum distance from the rear of the extended structure within 13 meters based on 200km during the rated load. However, C’s product publicity guide for the instant vehicle indicated the maximum distance from the rear of the extended structure at 200km to 15m or 16m in the load of the instant vehicle. In addition, the instant vehicle had safety devices that limit the withdrawal limit of the accusation room, but it was installed in a separate heading location capable of nullifyinging this, so that it can withdraw the structure exceeding the initial safety certification range. Moreover, the instant vehicle was installed in a more safe range than 20 mV, and the instant vehicle was installed in a lower condition than 18mV.

The accident of this case has been able to perform work beyond the permissible scope of withdrawal of the extension structure, so that safety devices for the vehicle of this case can be circumvented, and such work has been repeated.

arrow