logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.07.12 2016가단73415
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 13,681,754, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of them.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) Defendant E is the owner of the land and the building on the land of the Gangwon-do class F and the above ground (hereinafter “instant building”). Defendant D is the husband of Defendant E. The Defendants jointly constructed the instant building.

(2) However, around November 16, 2015, G (hereinafter “the deceased”) arrived at the instant building for the purpose of calculating the estimate of the rest of the toilet among the instant building, around November 16, 2015.

(3) However, at the time, at the time, the unclaimed construction of the rooftop of the instant building was completed, Defendant D had been working for covering the rooftop with vinyl. Therefore, Defendant D had covered the unclaimed part of the instant building, which was placed on the outer wall of the instant building that the deceased waiting in the train, and was covered by a vinyl.

(4) At around 16:20 on the same day, the deceased was on the floor of the instant building and moved to the rooftop of the instant building with the intention to assist Defendant D, and the deceased was killed due to brain damage around 0:00:10 on November 17, 2015, at the bottom of the instant building, with a hole covering a hole (80cm X 120cm, hereinafter “instant hole”) covering the passage connected to the interior of the instant building for the purpose of connecting the interior of the instant building. As a result, the deceased was on the string of the string, thereby falling into the indoor floor of the instant building through the instant hole, and the deceased was killed due to brain damage around 0:10 on September 17, 2015.

(5) Stikes covered by the mouth of this case were covered to prevent rainwaters, etc. from flowing into the interior. However, there was no dangerous indication around the mouth of this case, and there was no facility to prevent fall.

(6) The plaintiff A’s spouse, the plaintiff B, and the plaintiff.

arrow