beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.15 2013가단30195

손해배상(산)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 256,584,825 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 26, 2010 to May 15, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff was engaged in product packing work at the outdoor work site of the aforementioned corporation, and the wood for packaging, which was set up on the wall in the vertical direction, fell into the Plaintiff, with the strong wind.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as 12 times of chest scarcity 12 and scarcity scarcity damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant company (hereinafter "the defendant company") only concluded a daily employment contract with D company operated by C, and the defendant company is not liable for the occurrence of the accident in this case since it did not have concluded a labor contract with D company operated by C.

B. Article 23(2) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (Act No. 10339) provides that “a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent hazards caused by improper work methods, etc. in the course of excavating, quarrying, loading, unloading, timbering, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other operations.” Article 23(3) of the same Act provides that “a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent hazards in the course of his/her work, where soil and sand, structures, etc. might collapse, where workers might fall at work, where sand and structures, etc. might fall at work, where material objects might fall or come at risk, or where other hazards may occur in the course of his/her work due to natural disasters.”

The following facts or circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the inquiries by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office about Gap, Gap's evidence 2, 4, 5, Eul's evidence, and Eul's evidence 6, the work of this court and the fact inquiry by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office: