손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant: KRW 159,576,076 to Plaintiff A, KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff C and D respectively.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A was employed by the Defendant on October 10, 201, and was appointed as the head of the Working Group on Fluort in the construction site of the Mayang E-building. On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff A was injured by the 4th unit of the 2nd floor of the luort tower at the 4nd unit of the luort, and connected the safety level to the luort at the luort, and carried out work with the luort at the luort at the safety level at the luort. As a result, Plaintiff A was affected by the luort at approximately 4-5 meters below the floor of the rooftop (hereinafter “instant accident”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23528, Dec. 28, 2011>
2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s work, there was no facility such as a safety device, safety net, etc. to prevent falling at the time of the Plaintiff’s work.
3) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are children. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A’s evidence 1, Party A’s evidence 2-1, Party B’s evidence 2-2, Party B’s testimony and video, Party F’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. When the Defendant, an employer, had the Plaintiff, a worker, work at a place of high 4 to 5 meters from the floor, he/she should take necessary measures to prevent the fall risk, such as installing a safe network, in cases where it is difficult to install a work launch board or to install a work launch board. However, Plaintiff A was subject to the instant accident due to its failure to perform its duty of protection.
Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
Although the Defendant alleged that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to install a work launch or a safety control net due to the narrow space at the work site of the Plaintiff A, the testimony of each video and witness F as set forth in subparagraphs 2-1 and 2-1 and 2-2 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
2. The instant accident subject to limitation of liability is in the course of being sold to the Plaintiff A’s lux and the safety level.