손해배상(산)
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company that runs the business of manufacturing, selling, etc. from 166 Simpo-ro in Simpo-si (after that, the Defendant transferred the Defendant factory to 141), Plaintiff A is an employee who was employed by the Defendant from April 18, 201 to February 28, 2014, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A.
B. On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff A was injured by the steel plate slope (hereinafter “instant slope”) while moving the ice bend, which was made steel plates at Defendant factory, to the counter-storage water (hereinafter “instant village”) and suffered injury, such as the 12 chest-ladle lacing lacing of the 12 chests, while getting the qui of the instant village (hereinafter “instant slope”).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Plaintiff
A received benefits of KRW 32,212,720 in total, including KRW 8,436,960 in temporary layoff benefits, health care benefit 10,261,50 in health care benefit, disability benefit 18,514,260 in up to May 20, 2016, after having received a decision on the instant accident from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) An employer of relevant legal principles is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages caused by an employee’s violation of such duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da12082, Feb. 23, 199; 9Da47129, May 16, 2000). In order to recognize liability for damages to an employer on the ground of the violation of the duty of protection, the accident is related to the employee’s work, and the accident is anticipated or anticipated to occur ordinarily in the course of providing his/her labor.