beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,659,347 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 27, 2011 to December 30, 2014, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 27, 201, the Plaintiff was employed as field workers in the Defendant Company and worked in the secondary factory. On January 27, 201, the Plaintiff was engaged in the removal of Dominants before the brewing machine (hereinafter “the instant brewing machine”) around 09:00, and the safety partitions of the instant brewing machine was closed, but the safety partitions re-established again. Under that circumstance, the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff continued to Domination in the direction of the safety partitions, was scattered from the instant brewing machine, and a part of which was contained in the Plaintiff’s eye, was scattered, and the accident occurred.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (b)
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with the name of illness, such as the scopical scoppy and the congested table at the Central University Hospital on April 8, 201, and received both scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received respectively KRW 21,505,630 of temporary layoff benefits and KRW 12,623,150 of the medical care benefits, and KRW 33,176,410 of the disability benefits from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4, 5, 6, 13 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 6-6 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purpose of the whole pleadings or the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages inflicted on an employee by violating such duty.
Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 delivered on February 23, 1999