beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가단22995

손해배상(산)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 12,00,00, and KRW 40,446,072, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B and C, respectively; and (b) on January 9, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 6, 2015, E entered into an employment contract with the Defendant, a company whose purpose of establishment is aggregate sales business, engineering work, etc., and served as a dump truck driver from around that time.

B. On January 8, 2016, E sent to the aggregate extraction and molding workplace (hereinafter “instant workplace”) located in the G Co., Ltd. located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City (hereinafter “G”) and transported dump trucks with sand.

C. At around 11:30 of the same day, H, a worker belonging to G, was engaged in earth and sand flat operations by repeatedly driving an I Pester and repeating the advanced operation at the instant workplace. However, E (hereinafter “the deceased”) was going to the workplace of dump truck on the ground of a defect at around 11:30 of the same day, and was going to the back from the workplace of dump truck on the back wheeler’s face part, etc., while the above qui was placed to the back wheeler’s face part, etc., and died in the relevant workplace due to high brain damage, diversified pressure damage, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) D.

At the time of the instant accident, G’s director at the time of the instant accident and the Defendant’s managing director was in charge of the safety management of the instant workplace and the field responsibility. However, the J did not have been at the work site at the time of the instant accident, and became aware of the instant accident after receiving H’s telephone contact.

E. Meanwhile, the plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B and C are the deceased's children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 3 and 5 (including paper numbers), the witness H's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of the occurrence of the liability for damages, H neglects his/her duty of care to ascertain whether there is a person within the scope of work and to prevent the occurrence of an accident while working on a paint, which is a construction machine, even though it has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident.