손해배상(산)
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 148,794,734 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 26, 2015 to December 19, 2017.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant Sagaz International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sagaz”)
The purpose of the Act is to dispatch workers, etc., and the defendant Youngjina Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Youngjin”).
(2) On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff found that films of packaging machines (hereinafter “instant machines”) have been suspended due to the suspension of the said machines, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, and was dispatched to the Defendant Young-jin. (2) On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff was found to have worked at night at the Defendant Young-gu’s workplace located in Seocho-si, Young-gu, Gwangju, about 05:30 on February 25, 2015, and was in charge of replacing films of packaging machines (hereinafter “instant machines”) in order to prepare daily work.
3) However, at the time, B did not confirm that the Plaintiff puts the hand into the instant machine, and operated the cutting machine without checking the Plaintiff’s hand, and as a result, the Plaintiff entered the said machine as soon as possible and sustained the injury caused by the construction of the pipe, 2, 3, and 4 cut to the right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Seoul Hospital of the Republic of Korea in this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition 1 of the occurrence of responsibility, Defendant C is recognized as having been a temporary work agency of the Plaintiff, and Defendant Chjin, as a user company, the duty to improve the physical environment so as not to harm the life, body, and health of the Plaintiff in the course of providing labor, and to devise necessary measures, but failed to provide equipment at the site or to fully provide safety education.
And this was caused by the accident of this case.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly involved in the accident of this case.