logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.12 2015나2041921
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, the second parallel to the 11st parallel are as follows: (a) the addition of the second parallel to the 4th parallel is as follows.

"In light of the above legal principles and related Acts and subordinate statutes, comprehensively considering the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12 through 14 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of appraisal by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the defendant's removal of street, etc. has no need to install the guard day of this case. Thus, even if it is not so, the defendant was negligent in neglecting his duty to install and manage the guard day of this case so as not to cause damage to passengers due to the day of this case, and the defendant's negligence has caused the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case.

① On the left side of the road of this case, street lamps were installed, but the Defendant appears to have installed the instant guard day for the safety of passengers and the protection of street lamps from collision with street lamps. On the other hand, the accident site of this case is located at the left side of the road as a place for separation of light width into a large range of green areas, and there is a risk to the street side that provides for the installation of a protective fence in the instant guide.

Inasmuch as it appears that the instant accident was not a dangerous section in relation to the width line, etc. of the road, the location of the instant accident did not have a street lamps.

arrow