A. On September 19, 2016, while the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and worked as a type special tree in the construction site of the new construction project site in the Yongsan-gu Busan Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as an open thale, etc., in which the saw was set up in the Hander on September 19, 2016 and cut sabrogs and sabrogs in the save plate and save timber.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff received the foregoing treatment on the day of the accident, and received temporary layoff benefits from Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (Korea Labor Welfare Corporation) in KRW 15,437,310, medical care benefits6,213,940, and disability benefits 21,359,800.

C. The Plaintiff complained of a serious pain in a case where the right fingers down. However, as a result of the physical examination, the Plaintiff maintained a range of 81% operation within the scope of the top-down movement of the right fingers, and was deemed to have no labor ability loss rate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of a physical appraisal entrusted to the Director of the D Hospital of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service paid disability benefits to the Plaintiff, and the written disability diagnosis submitted by the Plaintiff to the hospital stated the rate of loss of labor capacity as 14%. As such, the rate of loss of labor capacity should be recognized as 14%. Based on this, the Plaintiff’s loss of daily income (i.e., KRW 3,828,792 per month x 0.14 x 0.14 x 0.786, Feb. 26, 2017 x 1,000,000 won for future medical expenses, and KRW 30 million for consolation money.

B. (1) The Defendant is not only obligated to protect the Plaintiff’s employer under the good faith principle, but also has the duty to prevent accidents, such as checking the safety of equipment and fixtures used in the workplace under his/her management, taking safety measures necessary for work, etc.

In addition, the defendant is found to have causation between the negligence that the defendant did not properly perform and the plaintiff's accident and injury of this case.