beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,624,878 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 11, 2017 to June 16, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 09:30 on September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was hospitalized, including the left-hand 3 and the 4 balance of divershed divers from September 11, 2017 to August 23, 2018, for the operation of the net machinery in which films are sealed by cutting the left-hand hand in the press machine, thereby causing injury to the left-hand hand, such as cutting of steel divers, etc., and was hospitalized, including the 3 and 4 balance of the left-hand divers from September 11, 2017 to August 23, 2018.
B. The Plaintiff received 20,203,000 won as temporary layoff benefits, 15,334,050 won as medical care benefits, and 17,120,480 won as disability benefits. According to the data prepared by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, the monthly average remuneration amount of the Plaintiff is KRW 1,937,00.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to C Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s employer, was equipped with necessary safety equipment after examining the safety of machinery, etc. inside the workplace, provided safety equipment to the workplace, provided safety education, and sustained injury from the instant accident to the Plaintiff due to negligence without sufficient physical and human facilities for safe work, such as providing safety education. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the relevant damage.
B. Although it is necessary for the Plaintiff to check whether the operation of the machinery has ceased and safely deducted the film when cutting the film on the machine in the process of affixing a film using the press system for limiting liability for damages, the Plaintiff appears to have caused the instant accident by automatically deducting the film while the machine was operated by the fluor. As such, the Plaintiff asserted the malfunction of the machine, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In this context, the details and progress of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s age and work experience, and the degree of injury of the instant case.