beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2016가단526021

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,718,733 and KRW 30,918,733 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 30,918,733, Feb. 18, 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28500, Oct. 27, 2017>

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother and only heir of the deceased C, and C is a victim employed by the Defendant, who died during the process of removing blin string 2 times in order to repair the breakdown of the Defendant’s operation D (hereinafter the instant bowling Chapter) from August 2015, in which the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, and C is a victim who died during the transfer to the hospital.

B. The Defendant is a business owner who ordinarily employs six workers and operates the instant bowling, and the Defendant is required to install a cover, sound, slick, slick, slick, slick, and slick, etc. on the part of which workers are likely to face danger. However, the Defendant is a criminal fact that the Defendant did not install slick slick, etc. on seven slick slick slicks in the slring machine room and did not install slick slicks, etc. on June 8, 2016 at the Suwon District Court, which notified the Defendant of the summary order (Violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act No. 20169, Dec. 16, 2016) and the summary order is the same year.

7.1. A final and conclusive judgment was rendered on December 7, 2016 in the same court, and the summary order was issued on the summary order of KRW 3,00,000 (violation of the Labor Standards Act) by being notified of a fine of KRW 3,00,000 for overtime work exceeding 12 hours a week, and the said summary order became final and conclusive on January 13, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of the occurrence of damages liability and the limitation on liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating for the damages suffered by C and the Plaintiff as a user of C, with respect to the occurrence of the instant accident.

I would like to say.

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable for damages as the owner and possessor of the bowling machinery and facilities, which are the instant structure. However, C also bowling machine.