손해배상
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,79,878 to the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from May 11, 2014 to November 17, 2015.
1. Around August 2013, the Plaintiff was employed for a restaurant in the name of “D” located in the Busan Northern-gu C and Adong 5, which is operated by the Defendant. On May 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was in charge of the main affairs of care and support. On May 20, 2014, while the Plaintiff was engaged in a strike by using the machinery that was sold at the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff deducted the head from the strike attached to the lower part of the said machinery without the pipe’s pipe. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was in charge of the main affairs of care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and care and
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1 and 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts acknowledged as liability and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant was merely 19 years old at the time of the instant accident and still did not perform measures necessary to prevent the accident, such as notifying the Plaintiff of the directions for the use of the machinery, or conducting safety education, by issuing instructions to the Plaintiff, who has failed to exercise due care and experience, and did not perform such duties. As such, the Plaintiff was placed in the said machinery in his hands and became subject to the instant accident.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident in this case, as long as he neglected the duty of safety consideration under the labor contract or the plaintiff's employer who neglected the duty of prevention of disaster.
B. Limit of liability, however, the plaintiff also has to put the hand in the above machinery with a pipe, even though he/she has to do so with due care by stopping the machinery in operation and by using tools, etc.