beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 29, 2016 to November 2, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff, who is an employee of the Defendant, to take measures against the Plaintiff upon the suspension of water supply of the Defendant’s building in Yangsan City, on January 29, 2016. (2) In order to verify the water level of the water tank (2m high) installed on the rooftop of the above building at around 10:00 on the same day, the Plaintiff, alone, was placed on the rooftop through the water tank with a moving-type square bridge on the water tank, was cut down on the rooftop floor on the wind over which the water tank is above the wall, and was damaged by the water tank, such as the cutting down of the right-side thropulul.
(3) The Defendant received, respectively, KRW 13,209,670 of temporary layoff benefits, KRW 14,903,200 of disability benefits (the lump sum of disability benefits), and KRW 5,537,500 of medical care benefits (the lump sum of disability benefits), from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. [In the instant case, there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 6 through 11, and Eul’s 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole,
B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer of the responsibility bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and where an employee suffers loss by violating such duty, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such loss.
(2) In light of the above facts, the Defendant, as an employer, has a duty to improve a physical environment so as not to harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor, and to take necessary measures so that the Plaintiff, as an employee, has a duty to consider safety. However, it is recognized that the Defendant failed to have adequate equipment at the site of the instant accident, or failed to complete sufficient safety education.
And this was caused by the accident of this case.
As such, the defendant is the accident of this case.