logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가단248286
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 2018, at around 05:50 on September 14, 2018, C driven a D vehicle, and driven the front of the F apartment door in front of the F apartment door located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, from G room to H school room, I, who opened the crosswalk on the right side of the direction of the proceeding, was shocked from the right side of the road to the right side, and accordingly, I died.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident,” and I am b.

At the time, the Deceased, as a daily employed worker of the Defendant, was involved in the instant traffic accident from the above F apartment room to the above construction site in order to work at the J new construction site where the Defendant was under construction.

C. The plaintiff is the deceased's child.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements (including each number, if any) Nos. 1, 6 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that at the time of the traffic accident in this case, the deceased was in attendance using the vehicle provided by the defendant. At the time of the traffic accident, there was sufficient risk that the surrounding area would cut off the crosswalk due to new wall hours, and thus, the driver of the defendant's commuting vehicle is obliged to pay safety consideration to the workers immediately before the construction site, but the traffic accident in this case occurred due to neglecting the duty to pay safety consideration to the workers immediately before the construction site, and thus, the defendant is liable as the user of the above commuting vehicle.

On the other hand, if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the arguments is added to each of the basic facts and evidence Nos. 9 and 10, it appears that the surrounding area was difficult at the time of the traffic accident in this case. The defendant's driver was not the front of the construction site, but the driver of the vehicle in the front of the deceased at the construction site, but the fact is recognized, and such fact alone does not lead to the traffic accident.

arrow