손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,343,601 as well as 5% per annum from January 25, 2016 to September 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 3, 2011, while the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on January 3, 201 and served as a cleaning agent of B-gu Office and affiliated street cleaners, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where the left-hand scept down on the left-hand scept down from the plate for the establishment and establishment of a vehicle while collecting waste from recyclable materials on the front of Seoul, around 06:00 on January 25, 2016, while cleaning vehicles are working for cleaning vehicles.
B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff returned to work for the first time on May 2016, after receiving the human salvology from D Hospital on February 3, 2016. However, as the human salvium re-salvined, the Plaintiff received the human salvists from E Hospital on July 12, 2016.
C. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and received KRW 9,347,230 as medical care benefits, and KRW 22,414,80 as disability benefits.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) An employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, as an incidental duty to the good faith principle accompanying the labor contract, and is liable to compensate the employee for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty of protection.
(2) As can be seen by the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case, as well as the health room, the above recognition, and each evidence, the Plaintiff mainly collects recyclable garbage during the late night and new wall time. As such, the Defendant is obligated to ensure the safety of workers by installing lighting facilities on a vehicle or providing an employee with lighting equipment.
In spite of the fact that it was negligent, the Defendant’s error caused the instant accident.
As such, it can be seen.