logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.12 2019나77477
손해배상(산)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, an employee affiliated with the Defendant, carried pipes on the truck at the Defendant’s workplace in order to supply pipes.

The Plaintiff, after cutting the pipe on the truck, caused an accident that the rubber was cut off while the rubber was cut, and falls off to the outside of the rail rail (hereinafter “instant accident”) while the rubber was cut, in order to fix the pipe from the front side of the seat of the truck driving.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered from the injury, such as blood transfusion, etc. due to the external wound.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer who is liable for damages 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 the employee is liable for compensating for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129 delivered on May 16, 2000, etc.). According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an employer, neglected to check whether the rubber used was abnormal before the use of the rubber so that its employees can work safely, and to take measures to replace the rubber discovered, and accordingly, the Defendant neglected to check whether the rubber used at the time of work was abnormal and caused the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant, since the plaintiff did not neglect the work rules that should work for two persons from the outside of the truck.

arrow