beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 284,190,710 as well as 5% per annum from March 20, 2016 to June 9, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the only heir of the Deceased with the mother of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”). The Defendant contracted C Corporation (the Section 1) to a construction company, and performed D Works in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “the instant construction”).
B. On March 18, 2016, the Deceased passed the instant construction site around the new wall, and fells under the hole of 40 cm in diameter and 4 m in depth (hereinafter “accident”) at the construction site of the instant construction site (hereinafter “instant accident”), and was discovered at around March 20, 2016 at around 09:20.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in the records and videos of Gap's evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the deceased returned home from the accident site of this case around Mar. 18, 2016. The construction site of this case is located in the middle of the above singing and the deceased's own house. ② The deceased returned home to the construction site without using the pedestrian passage installed adjacent to the construction site of this case without using the passage of the construction site, ② The deceased died at a diameter of 40cm in diameter, depth 4 meters in diameter, and a hole below the construction site of this case. ③ The above hole was installed to install a beamline in order to open the public pipes buried in the process of destroying the ground in relation to the construction of this case, and the defendant demolishedd the construction site of this case to the extent that the construction site of this case was demolished on the date of removal of the subcontracted construction site of this case, and the defendant demolished the construction site of this case to the extent of 30 meters after demolition.