logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.08.14 2018가합9335
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Each part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants seeking payment of KRW 1,297,463 of the physical appraisal cost shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2015, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) entered into a contract with E University for “G construction work” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to be newly constructed on the land F in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was a subcontractor for the instant construction work, and Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) entered into a contract with Defendant C on May 13, 2016 for the deduction period for soil and reinforced concrete construction among the instant construction work with Defendant B from May 13, 2016 to September 20, 2017. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a contract for the deduction of industrial accidents with each 200,000 won per field worker on the compensation limit, and the Plaintiff is a person who entered into a contract for the instant construction work with Defendant B on June 25, 2016.

B. On September 4, 2016, around 07:30 on September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff was performing the work of removing slves from the second floor floor of H-dong at the construction site of this case. However, there was an accident where the Plaintiff covered the Plaintiff, who was using the safety slves (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff lost his mind due to the instant accident, and was sent to the Gangnam I Hospital, and was under emergency treatment, but was transferred to the Kuju J Hospital again due to the aggravation of the situation, such as the spread of the overall paralysis, etc.

3) Afterwards, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in vertebrates and spathy, etc. due to damage to light water, and received preservation treatment during the period of hospitalization. On February 8, 2017, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to crypology and spathical surgery (under the 6th cryp removal surgery, but the symptoms were not revealed, and was subject to cryp treatment due to the symptoms of crypology due to the loss of crypology due to cryposis, but also appears to have the symptoms.

arrow