손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 2, 2015 to August 23, 2017, and thereafter.
1. Establishment of liability for damages;
A. In fact, around December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant Company, a company manufacturing Tech, was subject to an accident where the Plaintiff’s body was transferred to outside of the Defendant Company due to the Plaintiff’s replacement of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the 1st century pressure frame, and the humphal dume, due to the instant accident.
Of the consignments used for the transport of bit lease at the time of the accident of this case, in cases where the part (the part on which the Nart is installed) among the consignments used for the transport of twit (the part on which the Nart is not evenly distributed to both sides, there is a risk of an accident in which the part (the part on which the Nart is installed) among the parts (the part on which the Nart is installed) is not evenly distributed to the two sides below the lower, and then the consignee is pushed down and pushed down the t lease with the part among the workers.
The employees of the defendant company were aware of these risks, and the defendant company ordered the employees to not use the table boom for the purpose of transporting the leased.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, witness Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
B. In full view of the facts acknowledged as one liability and the purport of the entire pleadings, we can see the following circumstances:
① Although the Defendant Company was equipped with a string and string for the transport of bit lease, it still has been used in the transport of small amount of consignment for convenience.
② Nevertheless, Defendant Company did not actively endeavor to eradicate work behavior exclusively used for the transportation of the table by fixing the table table itself.
In full view of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s feet lease using the table.