logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.27 2013가합7500
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant White-Tech Co., Ltd., and Dae-il Co., Ltd., together with the Plaintiff KRW 236,872,392.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Defendant White-CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “White-gu Co., Ltd.”) is the contractor of the construction of the interior of the building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) 148-17, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction”).

Defendant White-C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “NF”) subcontracted shower and Chang-ho Co., Ltd. during the instant construction to a large enterprise.

The New Mine Diplomatic Association of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "New Mine Association") is the owner of the building in this case.

On September 15, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a daily worker employed by Defendant Dae-il Company, suffered injury, such as a bridge cutting on the right side on the wind, and a dynamic disorder caused by the skin image, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff was exposed to the construction site of the instant building while engaging in cosing work on the rooftop of the instant building (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Based on the recognition, Defendant 0 U.S.C.C. and New Mine D.: (a) has no dispute; (b) written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, and Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including the number of each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings: Defendant 10 U.S.C. (the main text of Article 150(3) and the main text of Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act); (c) the employer, who is responsible for the liability for damages to Defendant 0 U.S.C. and large-day companies, bears the duty to maintain physical environments and to devise necessary measures so as not to harm the health and safety of the worker in the course of providing labor; and (d) any employee suffers damage by violating such duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da7301, Nov. 26, 2002); and (d) Article 29(1) and 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Act.

arrow