구상금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a business compensation insurance contract for the Acheon Air Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tancheon Energy”) owned by it (hereinafter “the instant astronomical Air”).
B. At around 09:00 on September 11, 2012, C, a driver of the instant astronomical air, was working at the site of the construction of a new dormitory in Hanyang University (hereinafter referred to as “Mayang”) as an employee of SamyangN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “MayangN”) (hereinafter referred to as “Mayang”) with C, a driver of the instant astronomical air.
At the time, the respondent connected the hacks to the hacks set on the ground, and thereafter, C confirmed it, and carried out the work by cutting the pipe by hacks through the hacks. On the wind of the hacks after hacking the pipe into the hacks, C was involved in the injury of “the hacks of the 2 balance hacks, hacks of the hacks, part of the 2 balance hacks of the hacks, hacks of the hacks,” before hacks the hacks of the pipe into the hacks.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
By January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff recognized the foregoing accident as an occupational accident, and paid the victim KRW 3,150,180 of medical care benefits, temporary layoff benefits, KRW 4,803,40 of disability benefits, and KRW 7,227,00 of disability benefits.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, 10 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts of recognition 1 as to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence, even though C should well look at the working conditions of the victim, confirm the signal sent by the victim, and safely extract the pipe, while neglecting it.
As such, C and its employer are illegal acts.