beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 171,810,656 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 9, 2013 to November 11, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts 1) The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant company on March 17, 2010 and worked for the contact with the defendant company on September 9, 2013, was engaged in sprinking ship pipelines adjacent to the non-party Hyundai Heavy Industries C in the non-party Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., which is located in the Dong Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., on September 9, 2013, and the defendant is obligated to conduct safety education to ensure that safety accidents occur in the course of performing sprinking operations and to maintain the quality of the plaintiff's sprinking, sprinking, etc. in the course of performing sprinking operations. However, the defendant failed to perform the above duties and ordered the plaintiff to conduct the above sprinking operations without properly implementing the duties, and while performing the sprinking operations with the plaintiff's sprinking sprinking only with inferior materials, and caused the plaintiff's injury to the right side of each accident (hereinafter "the plaintiff's injury").
(2) The Plaintiff received temporary layoff benefits amounting to KRW 17,231,240, medical care benefits amounting to KRW 3,857,210, and disability benefits amounting to KRW 72,09,970, based on the period from September 9, 2013 to April 30, 2014 due to the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1's evidence
2. Evidence No. 2-1 through 6, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 9-1 through 5, evidence No. 10-1 through 11, evidence No. 17, evidence No. 22, evidence No. 23-1, video, and purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, an employer, is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment or labor contract, and did not fulfill its duty to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor. Therefore, the Defendant did not fulfill its duty to protect employees or to ensure safety. Therefore, the Defendant sustained the Plaintiff’s loss due to the instant accident.