1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of operating a comprehensive logistics business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a foreigner of the nationality of Sri Lanka, who works for Defendant B from June 17, 2014 to Defendant B.

B. On January 16, 2016, around Defendant B’s factory: (a) an accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s left-hand sturging of the goods, which was handed over to the ceiling sturgs operated by Defendant B’s factory (hereinafter “instant ceiling curgs”); and (b) the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s left-hand sturging of the upper-hand burgs.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not take appropriate measures despite the occurrence of a final accident that the instant YV fells down to the lower end due to the collapse of things, and the Plaintiff was injured due to the occurrence of the instant accident. However, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,000 for future medical expenses incurred from the instant accident, KRW 15,000 for consolation money, KRW 15,000 for consolation money, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. An employer of liability for damages is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and the employer is liable to compensate for damages caused by the employee’s breach of such duty of protection.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 delivered on February 23, 199). In light of the above legal principle and the returned to the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant accepted the instant tent through several times before and after the occurrence of the instant accident, in full view of the entries and arguments in No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant was aware that there was a defect in the instant tent even at the time of the instant accident.