beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts (1) The Plaintiff has served in the “C” operated by the Defendant.
On May 24, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of pictures, etc. on face, face, arms, etc. while explosioning, along with the net noise that seeks to put the above restaurant original decoration in a mixer, using the mixr on May 24, 2014.
(2) The police investigation results and the circumstances of the instant accident are as follows.
① The Plaintiff and Dong-gu’s employees called the Plaintiff and Dong-gu’s gas alarm, and D called the Defendant to have the warning given several times.
The defendant made a liaison with the gas inspection and management company E in order to take measures.
② Upon D’s phone call to the LABE, the staff of the LABS Co., Ltd. announced that, because it could be the same as that of the gas alarm, the power source code is re-samping.
③ The D did not re-samp the electric source code again, and the Plaintiff’s net explosion, which the Plaintiff puts a fire into a erode, was caused.
④ The police judged that the instant accident is presumed to have been explosiond due to a delay in the state that the gas valve in the erode was opened due to the continuous operation of the gas alarm machine.
(3) Meanwhile, based on the fact that the insurer F who entered into a contract with the LAF and the gas accident liability insurance company is not entitled to the liability of the insured, but the content of the insurance contract and the Defendant’s liability appears to be recognized as the employer, the insurer F paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 6.6 million on August 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff as insurance proceeds.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, and 12, fact-finding results for F Co., Ltd. of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is with the following negligence on the Defendant.
(1) A restaurant operator who handles dangerous substances, such as gas, and did not properly manage the facilities, such as a gas alarm.
② The Plaintiff, who is a worker, shall provide the lifelong safety education.