beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.28 2015가단210402

손해배상(산)

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 10,797,712 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 17, 2014 to March 28, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2014, Defendant B, who runs the construction business under the trade name of “D,” was awarded a contract with Defendant Ciplomatic Association (hereinafter “Defendant church”) for the work of a missionary officer of Defendant E and a rooftop in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant work”).

B. At around 07:00 on June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, as an employee of Defendant B, went on and down a bridge to remove his network on the rooftop of the Defendant church, and felled with the center while carrying out cutting operations using his dog.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the instant accident, Defendant B had F take a shooting bridge at the bottom of the bridge at the time of the instant accident, and did not install facilities that could prevent the crash accident, such as safety level tamp, etc.

The plaintiff suffered from the laverization of lavers in the left-hand lavers.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, 7 evidence, Eul's 1 and 2 evidence, witness F's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The occurrence of liability for damages is a so-called continuous claim relationship, which is based on personal trust relationship. As such, in an employment contract, an employee bears the duty to faithfully provide labor in accordance with the principle of good faith, and an employer also takes necessary measures to protect and assist an employee by providing an employee with a pleasant working environment, such as taking measures not to be damaged when the employee performs his/her duty, as well as the duty to pay remuneration to the employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39533, Feb. 10, 1998). According to the facts acknowledged in the above 1.1., the Defendant B bears the duty to protect or ensure safety consideration for the Plaintiff. The instant accident is due to the negligence of the Defendant B, who did not install safety facilities to prevent the fall accident.