beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,378,156 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 24, 2012 to June 14, 2016 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 2, the witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings:
From October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and served at the workplace of C Co., Ltd.
B. On November 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was performing the work of cleaning alcoholic beverage scrapers filled with D, together with D, at the pressure landing room of the manufacturing department C business place.
However, the Plaintiff: (a) carried strings of strings of strings with strings and strings with strings of strings, which do not completely remove the strings in the course of cleaning, and (b) tried to open a cover of strings operated by all the strings and remove wastes attached to the strings; (c) carried left hand by strings against the left hand, resulting in cutting off of the 2nds of 2nds of strings on the left hand.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). 2. Establishment of and limitation on liability for damages
A. An employer of liability is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment or labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages caused by nonperformance of such duty if an employee suffers damage.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant is also liable for tort liability in concurrence with nonperformance liability in a case where a violation of an employer’s duty of protection or duty of care for safety falls under the requirements of tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, the following is examined. According to the above facts, the Defendant belongs to C’s workplace.