손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,69,200 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 17, 2013 to July 21, 2015.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2009, the Plaintiff, as a Sri Lanka Lankan, entered the Republic of Korea industrial trainee and worked as a work worker, and was employed by the Defendant from July 18, 201 to work for the workplace operated by the Defendant.
B. On February 11, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where: (a) the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of packing materials at the Defendant factory under a press box and then leaving the press box via a hand-on box; and (b) the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of sealing materials by affixing the press box on the Plaintiff’s hand (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5,108,920 as temporary layoff benefits, KRW 11,038,160 as disability benefits, and KRW 5,171,550 as medical care benefits (from February 16, 2012 to March 25, 2013; KRW 45 days as hospitalization; KRW 132,00) by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence No. 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the evidence before the occurrence of liability for damages, Gap evidence No. 8 and witness Eul's testimony, the result of the present court's on-site inspection, and the whole purport of the pleadings, ① the plaintiff did not have any part (stoppy) which was made while performing the assembly process at the time of the present accident and did not have any part (stoppy) which was made in advance, and, ② the defendant company took exclusive charge of the presses work, and ② the defendant company took exclusive charge of the presses work, there was a case where the plaintiff or other personnel of the press team team did not make the press part sufficient and did not do the press work, and in such a case, the defendant did not take any measure against this situation even though other employees were aware of the press work, which was not D, and ③ the witness C was at the time of the present accident.