logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.09.16 2014가단31904
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 58,800,715 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 1, 2013 to September 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant B are Hyundai Capitaling System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Momaning System”).

() At around 08:30 on October 1, 2013, the employed kitchen used a minator installed at a restaurant to cut the minator, cut all the minator, cut off all the minator, put a hand into the entrance of the minator, put the minator into the minator. (ii) Defendant B operated the minator on the wind to turn all the minator into the minator, thereby causing injury, such as damage to the right part of the minator.

(3) The Plaintiff received medical care benefits of KRW 14,214,50, temporary layoff benefits of KRW 16,208,80, disability benefits of KRW 16,902,620 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service for the period of medical care from October 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014. (3) The Plaintiff received medical care benefits of KRW 16,208,80, disability benefits of KRW 16,902,620 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. According to the facts of recognition of the occurrence of responsibility and the limitation thereof, Defendant B neglected to take safety measures, such as inducing the Plaintiff to take thorough care so that the Plaintiff could not enter the mination machine in operating the mination machine, providing tools to remove the mination when the mination is finished after the mination machine was cut off, and the Defendants are responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, even though they were negligent in neglecting the work by urging the Plaintiff to prevent the entry of the mination machine into the mination machine in order to prevent the instant accident, or by posting on-site supervisors.

As to this, the Defendant Hyundai Domining System is not responsible for the Defendant Hyundai Domining System because the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff or Defendant B.

arrow