beta
Text
1. The Defendants each of the Plaintiff A, KRW 173,185,907, KRW 5,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff C, and each of the above.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is a company engaged in the maritime and port transport business, and the network G (hereinafter “the network”; hereinafter “Defendant E”) was an employee of Defendant E in the process of verifying the unique number of containers unloaded from the storage of Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) in Han-si, Han-si, Han-si, Han-si, Han-si, 1481-1 on February 14, 2012. Defendant D was also an employee of Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) by driving a container that was loaded into the cargo vehicle and loaded the container into the cargo vehicle. However, Defendant D did not have a construction operator of Defendant D.
B. While Defendant D was unable to view the deceased who confirmed the identification number of the container that Defendant D was laid down in the course of being pushed back by the container of this case on board the container of this case, there was an accident that caused the deceased to stick between the container by negligence.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident.” The Deceased was killed in the place of the accident due to the debrisoning of the chest part due to the instant accident.
C. Defendant D paid KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiffs during his criminal trial.
Plaintiff
A is the father of the deceased, and the mother of the deceased, and the plaintiff C is the birth of the deceased.
Defendant F is a person registered as the owner of the instant truck, and Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Fire”) entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with Defendant F with regard to the instant truck.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 7, Eul's evidence No. 1 through 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Grounds for and limitations on liability for damages;
A. According to the above recognition of the liability of Defendant D, E, and F for damages.