beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,583,894; (b) KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff A; and (c) from May 5, 2016 to January 8, 2021 to each of them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 5, 2016, the Defendant employed Plaintiff A as a worker for daily use. Plaintiff A, while carrying out the E chemical factory roof repair work in Busan City (hereinafter “the instant work”) located in D on the same day, was shouldered with asbestos slate meters from the roof of the factory in the first floor building (hereinafter “the instant accident”). B. The instant accident suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s upper part of the instant accident, the upper part of the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, the blood air fry, the chest, the chest, the upper part of the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, and the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, etc.
(c)
Plaintiff
B is the mother of the Plaintiff A.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5-1, Gap evidence No. 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The Defendant: (a) provided workers with education on working methods and safety education; (b) supervised the work; and (c) provided safe human and material environment in the process of providing labor by the Plaintiff; and (c) provided the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that the Defendant provided specific education on the work methods in the instant case to the Plaintiff A and supervised the work.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, the defendant violated the above duty of protection, and thereby the plaintiff A suffered the accident of this case.
It is reasonable to view it.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
However, according to the above facts and each evidence, it is sufficiently anticipated that the plaintiff A may fall with the asbestos slate machine if it takes a central part with the asbestos slate machine, not a C-type structure that fixs the asbestos slate machine at the time of the instant work through experience in various work sites for a long time. Nevertheless, the plaintiff A was erroneous by undergoing the asbestos slate machine, and the above roof construction was crashed.