손해배상(산)
1. The Defendant: (a) to Plaintiff A, KRW 102,506,897, and KRW 5,000,000 for each of them; and (b) from August 30, 2015 to September 20, 202.
Facts of recognition
The defendant is the owner of a fishing vessel D (79 tons, carrier ships, hereinafter referred to as the "instant vessel") with a fishing vessel on the port side side of the vessel, and the plaintiff A was employed as the crew of the instant vessel and worked as the driver of the instant vessel.
The plaintiffs are married couple.
At around 12:00 on August 30, 2015, the captain of the instant vessel: (a) mooring the instant vessel at the sea of approximately 2:00 on the south East East East East Eastern dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong Sheeted the instant vessel to be cut back for the movement of E; and (b) the Plaintiff’s two legs, who had cancelled the said main part of the port side of the instant vessel, were cut down to the main part of the main part of the instant vessel, to the main part of the said vessel, and eventually cut down the left part of the instant vessel A’s left part of the main part of the main part of the said part of the said vessel.
(2) In relation to the occurrence of the instant accident, the captain of the instant vessel: (a) was issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 on May 10, 201 from the Gwangju District Court, on the grounds that “the captain of the instant vessel had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of safety accidents by operating the engine in a state where safety is ensured by checking whether or not the instant accident has been grassd, such as divek, etc., and manipulating the engine while operating the engine at a state where safety is secured; and (b) was issued a fine of KRW 3,00,000 on the ground of occupational injury by occupational negligence.
Plaintiff
A was paid KRW 38,879,982 from disaster insurance for seafarers of a F organization, and KRW 172,658,409 for disability benefits, and was paid KRW 10,776,080 for four times during the period of medical care.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the existence of the obligation to compensate for damages as a whole, as seen in the above acknowledged facts, the captain of the ship of this case caused the accident of this case by negligence as stated in the above No. 1-C, and the defendant as the owner of the ship of this case.