손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant: 128,90,429 won to Plaintiff A; 5,00,000 won to Plaintiff B; and 2,50,000 won to Plaintiff C and D; and each of the above.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Plaintiff A was employed from July 4, 201 to the Defendant and engaged in cutting work at the Defendant’s shop within the Defendant’s factory. Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D are children of Plaintiff A.
On the other hand, the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of carrying on the manufacturing, wholesale, etc. of standard products, which is a user of G and H working at the heat treatment plant of F and the defendant, who is a person in charge of safety control in the factory of the defendant.
B. At around 09:20 on June 16, 2012, G and H continued the Defendant’s plant heat treatment plant process of manufacturing coins by air air-conditioning straw standards at the Defendant’s plant, and carried out a smoke treatment process using oxygen and LPG in each of these sound parts. A explosive fire, which resulted in the death of G on the same day, and the Plaintiff suffered pictures, etc., including 60-69% of the physical surface, connected to LPG containers, which were held by H, due to an explosive fire.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On November 22, 2012, the Incheon District Court issued a summary order as to the crime of occupational negligence and the crime of occupational injury on the ground that “In the event of heating processing work, there is a risk of explosion due to gas exposure.” The F, who is in charge of safety management of such work, provided education to install an air-conditioning prevention device on the gas surface connected to the LPG container, provided that he/she had a duty of care to check it in advance and check it on the site to prevent an accident due to explosion, and neglected to use G, etc. without installing an air-conditioning prevention device and reporting it to use gas soil connected to the LPG container without installing the air-conditioning prevention device.” On the ground that F’s negligence caused the accident of this case, the summary order was issued as to the crime of occupational negligence and the crime of occupational injury on the ground that the above summary order was as is, on December 8, 2012.