손해배상(기)
1. At around 18:00 on June 14, 2016, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the “Emb Cop” store located B to the product transport vehicle.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 14, 2016, around 18:00, the Plaintiff’s “Maart C store” located in B, which was operated by the Plaintiff, caused an accident that the Plaintiff’s employees D were pushed down with transportation cart and was faced with the Defendant’s her hurriium (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. On April 28, 2017, D was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a result of the crime of injury by negligence at the female branch of Suwon District Court due to the instant accident, and its punishment became final and conclusive on May 20, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 18, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is merely a minor contact accident, and the injury alleged by the Defendant to have suffered from the instant accident is not a causal relationship with the instant accident.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant regarding the instant accident does not exist.
B. The Defendant, due to the instant accident, suffered from an injury to salted base, etc., and received outpatient treatment from the immediately following the instant accident until June 4, 2018.
The plaintiff is an employee of D, who is an offender, and is liable to the defendant for the accident of this case.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant KRW 24,805,846 [the medical expenses of KRW 4,646,670 (from June 15, 2016 to June 4, 2018) (the pharmaceutical expenses of KRW 15,940 (from June 15, 2016 to June 7, 2018)] 3,724,236 (the toll of KRW 936,00 (from June 15, 2016 to April 30, 2018) and delay damages.
3. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) of the occurrence of damages liability, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of care. According to the evidence Nos. 3-12, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant sustained an injury due to the instant accident. Thus, the Plaintiff, as the employer of D, has the obligation to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident.