beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 203,515,961 to each Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 24, 2010 to December 3, 2014; and (b)
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant Human Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Human Korea”) is a company for the purpose of service security business and the dispatch of workers, etc., and the Defendant Bommmmm Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ummmmmmm”) is a company for the manufacture, sale, etc. of leather products. The Plaintiff is a worker dispatched to Defendant Ummmmmmmmmmm after concluding an employment contract with Defendant Human Human Korea.
B. At around 21:00 on November 24, 2010, the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of moving processed leather products contained in the handcar from the construction team of the leather products of Defendant U.S., to an elevator for cargo use. At this point, the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of purchasing the elevator fish at the end of the elevator’s head while working in the top-down and closing method (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injuries from the head cover opening, throst, thale, and thale and caused injuries to the head cover, and received 4-5 pact and disc removal, and thale surgery on November 25, 2010.
[Reasons for Recognition] Where there is no dispute between the parties, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts found in the responsibility of Defendant Human Korea, Defendant Human Korea, which entered into a direct employment contract with the Plaintiff, is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the employment contract, and takes measures so that temporary agency workers may work safely at the workplace by checking whether the elevator installed in U.N.k.m. is properly operated, and taking measures such as requesting correction in the event of breakdown. In light of the risk of the Plaintiff’s work, safety education should be conducted or the safety education should be conducted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff to undergo the instant accident due to his failure to perform the duty of safety consideration. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be compensated for the damages incurred by the instant accident.