logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.09.30 2014가단44450
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,434,605 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 6, 2012 to September 30, 2016.

Reasons

On August 6, 2012, around 08:30 on August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s employee, had three mining lines (PVC fish) in which one ton cargo loaded in the Defendant’s Changho Factory located in the 74 U.S. PV. PVC C, the Plaintiff, as the employee of the Defendant, was reduced to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The instant accident suffered injury, such as the nuclear escape certificate and the damage to the volume of water, the salt and tension of the shoulder, the salt of the elbow, the tension, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

[Reasons for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings are incidental obligations under the good faith principle accompanying the labor contract, which are accompanied by the labor contract, and the employer bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so as not to harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor, and the employee is liable to compensate for damages caused by the violation of such duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6015, Mar. 10, 200; 9Da47129, May 16, 200). The plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the accident of this case, as the plaintiff caused the accident of this case by negligence, although the employer neglected to take measures to prevent risks before giving orders to work as seen in the accident of this case, and neglected to perform safety education (limited to a general oral instruction to the plaintiff even if the defendant asserts that the plaintiff suffered damages from the accident of this case without any particular measure.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's duty to conduct a preliminary investigation and work plan, the violation of duty to designate a work commander, and C's unfair instruction are also the cause of the accident of this case.

arrow