209 Gaz. 2704 Damage compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1. Yellow ○○ (referring to 85 years old, male);

2. Yellow (it shall be 56 years old, male);

3. Ma○○ (55 years old, female).

4. Yellow otherwise (74 years old, male);

5. Yellow otherwise (75 years old, male).

Plaintiffs’ Address Olsan City

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

[Defendant-Appellant]

1. Title ○○

Mag-gu, Young-si

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Kim & Lee)

2. Gamb○ (54 years old, male).

Last Address O.O.T.

3. OOOO;

Suwon-si Suwon-si

Representative Director Ma○○

Law Firm Dao (Law Firm Doo)

[Defendant, Appellant]

4. ○○

Olsan City

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Kim & Lee)

August 10, 2010

August 31, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants shall pay 30,00,00 won to each of the plaintiffs YOO and YO, 30,00,000 won to the plaintiff YO, 2,500,000 won to the plaintiff YO, 2,500,000 won to the plaintiff YO, 2,500,000 won to the plaintiff YO, 2,500,000 won to the plaintiff YO, and 2,50,000 won to the plaintiff YO from February 28, 2009 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% amount per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2009, 19: on February 28, 2009, 000 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 -

'The building of this case' was divided into an elevator in front of the elevator in the Kim○○○, KimO-do, and the elevator in the corridor of the above building, where drinking was carried out together at the Domp on the ground of the first floor of the underground, and the lower part of the entrance door of the building of this case (the right elevator when considering from the corridor; hereinafter referred to as "the elevator of this case") was set off toward the entrance and the lower part of the entrance door of the building of this case was set off into the entrance and exit on the upper part of the third floor of the underground floor (hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"). The accident suffered two alleys, etc. due to this accident.

B. The Plaintiff Yoo-sung was the father of the Plaintiff Yoo-○, the Plaintiff YO-○’s mother, the Plaintiff YO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 17, 20, 21, 22; Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 4 (including each provisional lot number); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the accident of this case was an accident caused by the plaintiff Y○○'s escape from Schlage's home, taking a net expectation for the elevator of this case. The plaintiff Y○○, departing from Schlage, despite a weak shock that Schlage had been asked for about 5 to 8 meters on Eul Home. The elevator of this case did not take measures such as blocking people's access for safety or demanding attention despite the suspension of operation due to the breakdown at the time of the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant YO, the owner of this case, was responsible for the maintenance, repair, and contract of the elevator of this case, but the defendant SCO failed to take measures such as compensation for damages caused by the accident of this case.

In this regard, Defendant ○○○, OOOO, and Lee ○○○ had a strong shock on the platform of the instant Liber, and even according to the investigation conducted by the Judgment Committee on the Accident Investigation of the instant elevator after the instant accident, the structural defect of the instant elevator was not discovered at all, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim is groundless.

3. As to the occurrence of liability for damages

In relation to the instant accident, the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure is in a state of failing to meet safety requirements to be ordinarily equipped for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the standard should be whether the installer and custodian of the structure fulfilled the duty of protection measures to the extent generally required under social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure. Thus, even if an accident occurred from a structure, unless there are special circumstances, the installer and custodian of the structure is obliged to take protective measures to prepare for such an accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21053, Jan. 26, 2006).

갑 제31호증 , 을가 제2 내지 5호증 , 제9호증 , 을나 제1호증의2 , 제2 내지 5호증 ( 각 가 지번호 포함 ) 의 각 기재 , 이 법원의 승강기사고조사 판정위원회에 대한 사실조회 결과에 변론전체의 취지를 종합하면 , 이 사건 엘리베이터는 2008 . 9 . 9 . 매년 실시하는 한국승 강기안전기술원에 의한 검사결과 합격 판정을 받은 사실 , 이 사건 엘리베이터의 유 지 · 보수 업무를 위탁받은 피고 □□□□□□□는 매달 1회씩 정기점검을 실시하여 왔 는데 ( 이 사건 사고 발생 전 마지막 점검일은 2009 . 2 . 17 . 이다 ) , 이 사건 사고 발생 전 까지 이 사건 엘리베이터에 별다른 결함은 발견되지 않은 사실 , 승강기사고조사 판정위 원회는 이 사건 엘리베이터에 대하여 관리주체의 관리 소홀은 발견할 수 없었고 , 이 사건 엘리베이터 승강장 문의 기계적 강도는 유럽기준 ( EN Code ) 에 적합한 것으로 확 인되었으며 , 도어 슈의 상태 및 설치는 양호하였고 , 도어 슈의 가이드홈 묻힘량을 측정 한 결과 도어 슈 전체 높이 12 . 51㎜ 중 약 5 ~ 8㎝가 가이드홈에 묻혀 있어 충분한 것으 로 확인되는 등 이 사건 엘리베이터에 대한 설치 · 관리상의 하자는 발견할 수 없었고 , 이 사건 사고는 예측할 수 없는 큰 충격으로 승강장 문이 휘어져 도어 슈가 가이드홈 으로부터 이탈되면서 발생한 것으로 판단한 사실 , 또한 국립과학수사연구소는 이 사건 사고는 도어 슈가 가이드홈에 5 ~ 7m 정도로 물린 상태에서 외부에서의 충격으로 이탈 되어 승강장문이 내측으로 밀려나면서 원고 황○○가 하방의 틈새로 추락한 것으로 판 단한 사실 , 피고 권○○ , 이○○ , 피고 OOOOOO의 대표 윤○○ 및 피고 ㅁㅁㅁ COO의 직원으로서 이 사건 엘리베이터를 점검한 오00에 대한 검찰수사결과 이 사건 엘리베이터의 자체 결함이나 유지 · 보수업체의 과실을 찾을 수 없어 위 피고들에 대하여 불기소결정을 내린 사실을 인정할 수 있고 , 한편 승강기사고조사 판정위원회의 판정 결과 및 위 기관에 대한 사실조회 회신에 의하면 이 사건 엘리베이터 승강장 문 에서 일부 힘 ( 영구 변형 ) 이 발견된 점 등에 비추어 이 사건 사고는 이용자의 신체조건 에 관계없이 승강장문에 기대거나 통상의 이용과정에서 실수 등으로 발생할 수 있는 충격을 벗어난 과도하고 이례적인 힘이 가해져 발생한 것으로 판정한 사실 , 위 사고 당시 원고 황○○ 등이 술을 마시던 □□호프집 종업원 최○○은 원고 황○○와 친구 들이 사고 당시 복도에서 시끄럽게 떠들며 장난을 치던 중 ' 쾅 ' 소리가 나서 밖으로 나 가보니 이 사건 엘리베이터 문이 이탈되어 있었다고 진술하고 있고 , 이 사건 사고 당 시 이 사건 건물 1층에 있었다는 전○○은 위 사고를 직접 보지는 못했지만 위 사고 당시 ' 쾅 ' 하는 큰소리가 났다고 진술하고 있는 사실 , 이 사건 사고 당시 원고 황○○와 복도에서 같이 있었던 김○○는 이 사건 사고 직후 오산소방서에 구조요청을 하면서 사고경위에 ' 엘리베이터 밀었는데 밀려서 떨어졌어요 ' , ' 밀려서 떨어졌어요 ' 라고 말한 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

Therefore, even though the accident of this case was only expected in the elevator door of the plaintiff Y○○, it is not an accident that occurred due to the plaintiff Y○○'s attitude that the elevator platform did not have safety requirements for its ordinary use, but an accident that occurred due to the emercative behavior that happens beyond the shock level that may occur in the ordinary course of use. The violation of Gap 21 and 22 evidence (including each number) is difficult to believe, and only the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to view that there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the elevator of this case against the defendants, or that the elevator platform might cause danger after the above emercation of the elevator platform as a result of the above emercation, and therefore, there is a duty to take protective measures against such accident.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs asserted that the accident in this case occurred because the defendants did not take measures such as repair or make access to the elevator at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and therefore, according to the statements on the No. 6, 7, 24, 25, 32, and 42 (including each virtual lot number) of the elevator in this case, it can be recognized that the operation of the elevator in this case was frequently suspended. However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence 7, 8-1, 5, Eul evidence 7, 8-1, and 5, the elevator in this case was operated normally without any defects, but one of the two elevators installed in the building in this case in order for the owner of the building in this case to pay electricity, the defects of the elevator in this case can not be found to be operated continuously on the premise that the above elevator in this case had been operated from 18 million to 24 million:00.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho

Judges Immination

Judges - Long-Age