손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,208,322 as well as 5% per annum from April 17, 2012 to June 26, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (i) On December 1, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant on December 1, 201 and works at the Ethical Center.
From March 31, 2012, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs worked in the Hyba Logistics Center.
B. At around 05:40 on April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) on the right side of the wall of the building that was driven by a string truck (hereinafter referred to as “EPT”) and brought back to a back, the Plaintiff conflicts with the right side of the building that was set down in the direction of speed and direction while driving the string truck (hereinafter referred to as “EPT”) and getting back to a back, which led to the occurrence of an accident that led to the Plaintiff’s left side bridge on the side of the wall of the EPT board and the building.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the mouths at the bottom of the left-hand pelke, the upper-hand pelke, and the pelkes at the left-hand pelke due to the instant accident.
x) There is no fact that the defendant specially provides safety education or provided safety equipment in connection with the operation of the TPP.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as an employer, has provided safety education to prevent the plaintiff's employee from causing harm to life and body while on duty, and has neglected his duty of safety care as an employer to protect from occupational accidents by improving the working environment, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case.
C. However, the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to ensure the safety of himself/herself by sufficiently well-founded and safe operation of the TPP, and such mistake appears to have influenced the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s negligence.