beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 154,857,368 to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from April 24, 2011 to October 23, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The defendant is the B rolling stock (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea-Japan vehicle").
C) On April 24, 201, around 13:10 on April 24, 201, a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to a contract. (2) around 54 m3:5 m3 m3:5 m3 m3:5 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 in front of the structure.
Mans, including the Plaintiff, who were listed on the above work unit, completed the work of loading and unloading pulp of the car in A, C, while driving a melting vehicle in the future, had the driver's seat on the front side of the melting vehicle, and shocked the above work unit on the front side of the melting vehicle, and the work cost incurred in the high portion of the load loaded in the process was towed by the vehicle, and the Plaintiff, who was waiting for the work of loading and unloading pulp of the next vehicle above the work unit, fell on the ground.
(3) The Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident No. 11 and No. 12, such as the so-called “the instant accident” (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s 2, 3, Eul’s 1, and 2 (each entry, video, and oral argument included in the serial number)
B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that caused the driver of a vehicle in the process of driving the vehicle in the future and driving the vehicle in a safe manner. As such, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to a vehicle in the Ghana. 2) The defendant neglected this even though the plaintiff neglected to take into account the safe departure of the vehicle in the Ghana, and did not wear a safety mark for the safety of the vehicle, but it is argued that there was negligence that the plaintiff did not wear a safety mark for the safety of the vehicle. However, the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is written.