beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) each of them; (b) KRW 8,221,863; and (c) KRW 2,00,000; and (b) each of them from July 3, 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).
(2) On August 26, 2013, while the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant Company to work as a break file and provided labor at the site of the project for the development of the disaster-saving district in Gohap-gun, Incheon to provide labor, the Defendant Company was a representative director of the Defendant Company and the person in charge of the safety management at the construction site. (3) On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff incurred a loss to the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s left-hand side by moving the sets file to a break file file storage equipment for navigation after the break-out around 16:25, 2013, while the work was being moved to a break file storage equipment for navigation, and the signal with the sign-up staff was not consistent due to the move of factory expenses, the Plaintiff incurred a loss to the left-hand side of the Plaintiff, such as a serious pressure and annual installments damage on the left-hand left-hand side, damage on the left-hand side, damage to the left-hand side of the said equipment, etc.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) Plaintiff B is a de facto spouse of Plaintiff A. [based on recognition] without dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 10 (a serial number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).
3.3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2
B. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant company and the defendant D bear the duty to take necessary measures or to ensure safety in order to prevent any harm to life, body, and health in the course of providing labor by employees.
In addition, even if the occurrence or expansion of the accident had a duty to prevent the occurrence or expansion of the accident, the occurrence of the accident in this case occurred by movement of astronomical equipment with due care, even though the astronomical factory expenses article, etc. under the management and supervision of the defendants were to perform navigational operations, the defendants suffered from the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.