beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.17 2016가단9561

손해배상(산)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,272,642 as well as 5% per annum from November 3, 2015 to November 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The defendant's liability for damages

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff, a worker of the Defendant, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was injured by the Defendant’s injury, such as subververging the left hand in the Defendant’s work of MCT (public machinery) around November 14:10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, who is an employer, failed to perform its duty to take safety measures necessary for the provision of labor for the Plaintiff, who is an employee, and thus, is liable for nonperformance or tort liability for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

C. However, as the plaintiff was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to promote his/her own safety during the work, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 40% in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleading.

2. In principle, a period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded;

At the time of the accident, the amount of damages shall be calculated at the rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct interim interest.

It shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 6 evidence, the result of the commission of physical examination to the president of an ordinary university hospital by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Personal information 1) Personal information: The Plaintiff claimed income of KRW 2,476,278 per month on February 19, 2029, while the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3) Follow-up disability: The steel in Section 5 of the left-hand part of the fifth chapter of the lower-hand part of the disability assessment table (V. of the cloved disability assessment table).