logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.11 2015가단5012584
구상금
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant Co., Ltd., 36,960,000 won, and Defendant A Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a contract with the Specialized Construction Mutual Aid Association, under which the insured is “B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”)”, “from March 21, 2014 to December 24, 2014” and “100 million won per capita” are liable for damages incurred by the insured’s employees due to the insured’s occupational accidents in excess of the amount of compensation covered under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, among the damages incurred by the insured’s employees due to the said occupational accidents (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”).

Defendant A is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in construction machinery contract business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and is the owner and operator of the D D mining searcher (hereinafter referred to as “instant mining searcher”) and the Defendant K non-life insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant K non-life insurance”) is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant two insurance contract”) with the Defendant setting the insurance period between April 24, 2014 and October 24, 2015 to cover legal liability arising from the operation of the instant mining searcher (hereinafter referred to as “instant two insurance contract” in this case, and when referred to as “instant one insurance contract” together with the instant insurance contract).

B. In the event of the instant accident, Defendant A leased the instant digging pool to B in relation to the road maintenance and improvement works of the E-Road, and thereafter, Defendant A operated the instant digging pool on June 5, 2014 and performed a stop work on the surface of the road around 15:30.

B The signal receiver F, a signal receiver, was working to induce the safe operation of ordinary vehicles after the construction site at the time.

However, while Defendant A moving back the instant excavation machine, Defendant A put up the network F while working as above, and following.

arrow