본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.13 2015가단33014

1. The Defendant’s KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 23, 2014 to December 13, 2016.


1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company and was working as a cargo driver. 2) On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) loaded the ancillary equipment of the vertical rectangular machine (Article 500 g) on the cargo column of the freight truck (Article 500 g) on September 23, 2014; (b) driven the said vehicle; (c) moved the said vehicle on the part of the Defendant Company located in Spocheon-si B; and (d) parked the said vehicle on the back of the national flag frame near the Defendant Company’s emotional.

In addition, in order for the article C to facilitate the operation of a trucking vehicle in which the accessory equipment of the vertical rectangular machine was loaded, the Plaintiff was left in hand on the cargo vehicle with a line attached to the cargo vehicle in order to facilitate the operation of the trucking vehicle, and the Plaintiff got off the trucking vehicle, and the Plaintiff, who attempted to prevent the trucking vehicle, was down to the floor of the road by fasting it down.

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered from the emulsion (safety), 2ndic heat, and diversified typology of the 1st century.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination 1) An employer of liability is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health during the course of providing labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6015, Mar. 10, 200; 9Da47129, May 16, 2000; 4,000; 9Da47129, supra; and 9Da47129, May 12, 2000; 4,00 each of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, including the following circumstances: