beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. On April 16, 2017, Plaintiff A, as an employee of the Defendant Company, was engaged in the work at the construction site of multi-household E (hereinafter “E site”) located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, Busan, and suffered injury, such as the dives of the king and the dives of the frame, etc., due to an accident in which the connecting part of the non-development plate was cut and fall (hereinafter “instant accident”).
The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s failure to properly perform its duty to prevent harm on the construction site and the duty to protect employees by failing to properly install the protective equipment necessary for the work, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 80 million (i.e., positive damages of KRW 50 million (i., KRW 20 million), KRW 10 million for consolation money, KRW 10 million for consolation money, KRW 5 million for consolation money, and KRW 5 million for consolation money and delay damages for the Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and KRW 10 million for the Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and KRW 5 million for consolation money.
2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including paper numbers) and all the arguments, Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C is the child of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff A is the construction site of the instant accident, and Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the dysium and the dysium dysium, etc. due to the instant accident at the construction site of Plaintiff A, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the E site is the construction site of Defendant Company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.