손해배상(산)
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment are asserted by the plaintiffs A around 1989 at the opening team to make lids of cans through joining the defendant company, and they were used for brain fluoral and cerebral blood on August 24, 2011. The working environment is very poor due to high heat, gas, dust, noise, etc. generated in the manufacturing process of cans, and the defendant company did not take measures such as preventing industrial accidents under the Occupational Safety and Health Act or requiring the plaintiff A to undergo a special health examination, and did not take measures for the plaintiff A's health, such as continuing to perform the same work, regardless of the plaintiff's fluoral depression before the occurrence of the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant company and his mother did not take measures for the plaintiff A's health.
As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, 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, and if an employee suffers loss by violating such duty of protection, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such loss.
In this case, there is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff A was employed by the defendant company while working for the defendant company, the ability to work has been lost by 100% due to brain color, etc.
Therefore, it is problematic whether Plaintiff A’s disability is recognized as a result of Defendant Company’s breach of duty to protect, including the use of beauty ethyl et al., and according to the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to deem Plaintiff A’s disability as a result of Defendant Company’s breach of duty to protect.
① The Plaintiff A is together with the employees of the Defendant Company.