beta
Text
1. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant paid to Plaintiff A KRW 181,873,856, Plaintiff B, and C each amount of KRW 2,00,000 and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a company for the manufacture, sale, etc. of raw water, and the Plaintiff was an employee who entered into a labor contract (management contract) with the Defendant, and from October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was in charge of the inspection and repair of the production machinery at the Defendant’s factory located in Gyeonggi-gun E in Gyeonggi-gu. (2) On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff attempted to repair the machinery without blocking all of the machinery, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the inspection and repair of the production machinery.
(3) Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as pressure damage, damage to the right upper part, damage to the right upper part, the upper part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the upper part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The plaintiffs claiming that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred because the defendant failed to perform his duty as an employer by providing safety education or taking safety measures against the risks of the accident.
In regard to this, although the defendant should perform the work in the state of blocking all of the case of repair due to the breakdown in the machinery, it was caused by the accident of this case while repairing the machinery without blocking all of the plaintiff A. Thus, the accident of this case is solely caused by the negligence of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is not responsible for the accident of this case.
It is the facts recognized earlier.