logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2017.08.24 2016나25228
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept

Nos. 4, 12, 13, and 14 (including the number of pages 8, 4, 9, and 7) on the ground of the instant accident, as follows. (3) Nos. 4, 12, 13, and 14 of the amended or added part Nos. 8, 4, 9, and 7

In light of the statements or images of the first instance trial witness F, K’s testimony, part of witness I, L’s testimony, witness F, witness F of the first instance trial, witness F of the first instance trial and witness of the first instance trial, witness of each part of the first instance trial and the first instance trial, and witness’s testimony of the instant accident, video of the instant accident, and the current state of V immediately after the instant accident, it seems that the width of the first 10 steel frame column was unfolded. Despite witness F of the first instance trial and P’s testimony, it is reasonable to see that the instant gate was attached to the third steel pole at the time of the instant accident, as the judgment of the first instance trial was recognized. Considering the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire arguments, it is reasonable to see that the instant accident was done at a time by setting the location of the steel pole at the time of the instant accident and setting the risks of the steel pole at the time of the instant accident to be separated from or removed from the steel pole at the time of the instant accident.

The testimony of the witness L and I of the first instance court against this is not reliable, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, 14 through 19, 23 through 26, 31, 33.

arrow