손해배상(산)
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Defendant.
B. On July 9, 2014, while the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of inserting materials in the CNS presses at the Defendant’s workplace on July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff sustained injury from the right part of the second balance, which was stuck to the presses.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff suffered a permanent disability of 9% by the instant accident. D.
The Plaintiff received as insurance benefits the total amount of KRW 22,543,740 of temporary layoff benefits, KRW 7,517,200, KRW 3,403,270, and KRW 11,384,120.
[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap Nos. 3, 7, Eul Nos. 4 (including numbers, if any), the result of the request for physical appraisal of Daegu City University Hospital on December 30, 2015, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination
A. An employer of liability for damages bears the duty to maintain a physical environment and take necessary measures so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health during the course of providing his/her service. Such duty of protection is an incidental duty recognized by the principle of good faith in light of the characteristics of the employment contract, and an employer who violates this duty is liable to compensate an employee for tort liability.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086 delivered on April 25, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da7301 delivered on November 26, 2002, etc.). In full view of the above evidence and the overall purport of the oral argument as to the instant case, the Plaintiff started working at the Defendant’s workplace only two days after the commencement of the work at the Defendant’s workplace, and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with sufficient notification of risks that may arise in the course of the work, and provided education on the safe method of use, etc. so as not to cause any accident, but there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the above education was conducted (see, e.g., the statement of evidence No. 49).