beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 41,352,923 to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from September 4, 2013 to February 6, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 4, 2013, from 14:30 to 15:00, at the factory Dokkdong, Defendant B, an employee of Defendant Mine Industry Co., Ltd., was dispatched to the above site in the Dokdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and was driving an electric vehicle owned by Defendant Mine Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Plaintiff, a cargo driver on the Dok-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, was shocked to the above part of the Plaintiff’s left side direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the impairment of the body of the Plaintiff’s body of the body of the Plaintiff, the body of the body of the Plaintiff, the body of the body of the Plaintiff
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and Defendant Mine Industrial Co., Ltd., as an employer of Defendant B, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident under Article 756 of the Civil Act, which Defendant B incurred to the Plaintiff with respect to the execution of its business, and Defendant Farm Nickel Co., Ltd is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or as an employer of Defendant B, who is the operator of the instant vehicle.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 15, and Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff was listed above Dok even though the plaintiff's cargo was not in the order of unloading at the time.