2015 Ma68538 Compensation (san)

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Ha, Attorneys Yellow-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

K

November 8, 2016

November 29, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won with 5% per annum from May 2, 2003 to November 19, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. In the past, on April 21, 2003, the Defendant, who operated C’s interior wall construction of the building owned D from D on April 21, 2003, contracted to F, a seal construction business operator, by receiving a contract for the outer wall construction of the building, washing of the front of the building, washing of the exterior wall construction of the building, and interior stairs painting construction of the building. However, in order to perform the outside wall construction of the building, F shall be installed so as to be up to the outside wall of the building so that the work operator may be up to the outside wall of the building, so F shall be entrusted to G only a day of the part of the installation work of Ababa, and the Plaintiff was put into the temporary site of the building of E in the introduction of G on May 2, 2003.

B. Of the rooftops of the above building, the rooftop towers consisting of elevator operating facilities and stairs rooms were located in the parts of the above building. On May 2, 2003, non-building non-building walls installed in the wall surface and the wall surface of the above rooftop and the wall surface of the E-building. On the immediate side of the above rooftop, the substation was installed in the substation, but the substation was installed with a warning sign indicating “2,900 V special and high voltage risk” attached to the substation, and there was an Aluminium facility that appears to be a warehouse at intervals of about 50 centimeters from the wall side of the substation.

C. At the time, the Plaintiff, along with other persons at the time, had those who installed Abane on the wall of the said part of the building, work to put Abane on the Abane rooftop, which was dried by cricks on the rooftop of the building. The above work method of moving Abane steel bars through a large amount of space of about 50 centimeters was difficult in terms of the state of Abane installed in the existing part and the shape of the building. As such, the Plaintiff and the human body members were to work in the form of working to put Abane to the substation for Abane inside the transformation room from the wall facing the transformation room to the person who performs the construction work of Abane from the wall to the person who performs the construction work of Abane.

D. In such a way, when the plaintiff moves the iron bars for Abane, one end of the steel bars was in contact with the electricity pets inside the transformation room where high pressure flows (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case"). The plaintiff suffered 15% of electric images on the trees, chests, shoulders, both sides, spons, spons, and excellent parts before high pressure, due to the accident in this case.

13. It had been subject to duplicative duplicative gye, 6 June 2003, which was cut without right-hand.

E. Meanwhile, the office of the Defendant’s “C Rotterdam” was placed in the second floor of the E building, and its employees at “C Rotterdam” intended to give specific work instructions to those who install Abababa, or who take part in Abababa steel bars, and encourage them to work.

F. Upon the occurrence of the above accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2003da83756, and the Incheon District Court sentenced to the judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim in whole as follows on October 15, 2005. The above judgment was made on December 2, 2005.

13. The final and conclusive judgment of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "final and conclusive judgment of this case") is "the bonds or obligations recognized in the above judgment" or "the obligations of this case".

The following:

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 2, 2003 to November 19, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

G. The defendant did not pay the debt of this case.

H. Meanwhile, the Defendant was declared bankrupt and granted immunity from the above court by filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014 (the lower court’s 20165) and the Seoul Central District Court No. 3165 (the Seoul Central District Court 2014) (hereinafter “instant immunity on immunity”).

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including evidence with a number of branches), the facts with a significant effect in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claim under the proviso of Article 566 (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won and damages for delay in accordance with the final judgment of this case.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The instant accident is not caused by the Defendant’s gross negligence. Therefore, the Defendant was exempted from the instant liability in accordance with the decision to grant immunity, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on this case is unlawful.

3. Determination

A. "Serious negligence" under Article 566 subparagraph 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which stipulates that the debtor shall be liable for damages caused by a tort infringing on the life or body of another person by gross negligence, as one of non-exempt claims, means that the debtor has paid little attention in doing any act.

It refers to a significant breach of the duty of care required by the general public, such as failing to do any such act, even though it could have been easily predicted that such act would result in the occurrence of life or physical injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da325, Mar. 25, 2010).

See Supreme Court Decision 19130 Decided 19130.

B. In light of the various circumstances as seen in paragraph (1) above, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s gross negligence, which caused the Plaintiff to work without sufficient safety measures, even if the Plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, even if it is merely a ground for limiting the Defendant’s liability for damages, and does not constitute a ground for exempting the Defendant’s liability.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation of this case constitutes a non-exclusive obligation under Article 566 subparag. 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 50,00,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 2, 2003 to November 19, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of this case is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case as per Disposition.

Judges Do residents