logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.10.15 2018가단4214
채무부존재확인
Text

1. Damage incurred by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in relation to an accident that occurred near the Republic of Korea, around October 28, 2018, around D around 20:50.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 28, 2018, around 20:50, the Defendant: (a) was a person who driven a liquid car on the D neighboring road in the Hanju-si; (b) was caused by a multi-motor vehicle accident (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) the Plaintiff was a company that subcontracted water supply and drainage works on the road at the site of the instant accident to perform construction works after obtaining a subcontract for water supply and drainage works from the prime viewing.

B. The construction site of this case is a section of the main road of the primary road, which does not have street lamps, etc. on the right side with some roadways. At the time of the accident of this case, the road packing was cut down for construction, but there was no information board or warning, etc. to inform that the road is under construction on the right side.

C. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant: (a) discovered a bend road at the site of the construction site; (b) set up a bend road on the right side; and (c) set up hand on the left side to avoid this; (d) collisions between the construction site and the width of the road; (b) conflict with the motor vehicle on the opposite side; and (c) set up the motor vehicle on the right side.

In the instant accident, the Defendant was under the diagnosis of injury, such as brain-dead and bones salt, and was hospitalized at the E Hospital for four days from October 29, 2018 to November 1, 2018, and the Defendant’s car was disseminated and scrapped.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul-1 to 8, and evidence of 13 to 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition at the construction site of the accident of this case, the Plaintiff did not supervise the construction site or install warning signs or warnings, etc., even though the Plaintiff was in a situation that could lead to accidents, such as electric clothes, when a vehicle passes through a sloping to a road for water supply and sewerage construction for the instant accident of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant, who was unaware of the construction site of the front section at night, did not know of the construction site of this case, and operated Hand to detect the construction site of this case and avoid accidents, such as electric clothes.

arrow