beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 43,913,114; and (b) KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from June 5, 2012 to May 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (i.e., the defendant is a person engaged in the repair of machinery, etc. under the trade name of Emerctic machine from Emercia D, and the plaintiff is an employee employed by the defendant, and the plaintiff B is a father of the plaintiff A, and the emercia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "emercia") is a company that manufactures emul
Shed the Defendant requested the installation of a support stand for the repair of the bell from friendlys, and on June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff A performed a melting work for the installation of the support stand in accordance with the Defendant’s work instruction at the workplace of friendlys.
Secondly, in the process of manufacturing the ice pumps, there was inflammable gas in the workplace of friendlys, so there was a possibility of remaining inflammable gas in the workplace of friendlys, and the said gas was at the risk of explosion if the flames were to occur in the process of melting. However, there was no explanation from the Defendant or the ice before melting.
x. On June 5, 2012, the plaintiff A suffered an accident that explosions the inflammable gas while being engaged in the contact work on June 5, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered from approximately 70% of the heart 2 and 3 degrees of image in telegraph, thereby causing a permanent disorder in drilling and left part part of the port and on the right part of the road.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; entries in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1-4, 9, and 10 (including numbers, if any); witness F's testimony; the result of a partial party's personal examination of the defendant; the result of a physical examination of the head of the Korea University Hospital within the University; the purport of the entire pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, as an employer of Plaintiff A, neglected to maintain the working environment to prevent an employee from causing harm to life and body during work and to protect the employee from occupational accidents, and neglected to take safety consideration as an employer who should be protected from occupational accidents.