손해배상(산)
1. The Defendants jointly share 28,524,938 won to Plaintiff A, and 2,00,000 won to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25090, Apr. 1, 2014>
1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant C is a business operator engaged in logistics loading and unloading business under the trade name of “E,” and Defendant D is an employee who has been employed by Defendant C in charge of cargo loading and unloading business for F-lanes. The Plaintiff is an employee employed by the Defendant C, and Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A. The Defendant D around December 15, 2014, Defendant D was an employee employed by the Defendant C, and Plaintiff B was the wife of the Plaintiff. (2) On December 10:05, 2014, at the OBcer Logistics Center located in Suwon-dong, Youngcheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, DBer Logistics Center located in Suwon-dong, Sucheon-dong, and loaded the beer and 10 km in the direction of the office in order to load the beer at the speed of about 10 km in the speed of the city, but did not immediately stop to the left part of the Plaintiff’s left part of the vehicle.
3) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as mination and cutting down on the left-hand side, and mination and cutting down on the left-hand side. 4) Meanwhile, Plaintiff A was paid KRW 17,850,780 for temporary layoff benefits and KRW 14,753,100 for medical care benefits, as recognized by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service from December 15, 2014 to August 3, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 9, 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings
B. Defendant D, who is operating a car in the workplace, has a duty of care to secure a view so that it can confirm whether people enter the workplace within the scope of work and to give a prior attention. However, due to negligence, Defendant C has a duty of care to take safety measures in the workplace by placing safety personnel to prevent the entry of the people in the workplace for the prevention of an accident. However, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence, which failed to perform such duty of care. Thus, the Defendants are joint tortfeasors.