logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.09.26 2016나51962
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B, on July 27, 2015, “C” operated at the D Construction Site in operation, and loaded construction materials on the F Tracler (hereinafter “instant Tracler”) at the D Construction Site, and shocked the part of the tower of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (b)

B, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, it was in a state in which the leading line was not integrated into the building materials, and even if G, the head of the Working Group, did not follow the instructions of G, he arbitrarily fabricated the instant straw, and loaded the building materials on the instant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant vehicle, and the Defendant is the owner of the instant vehicle, and was employed by B who operated the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above fact of recognition, B, who has been operating a cater, was negligent in arbitrarily putting up construction materials in the process of loading the construction materials while the site staff did not combine the leading line, and the accident in this case occurred thereby, the Defendant, the user of B, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case. However, considering the various circumstances shown in the argument process of this case, such as the fact that the Plaintiff did not consult in advance with the Defendant on safety measures such as the method of loading the construction materials, and that there was no objection as to the work method of B at the time of the accident in this case, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 90%.

(b) The repair cost, if a motor vehicle is damaged due to an accident within the scope of liability for damages, shall be the repairing cost unless there are special circumstances.

arrow