beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 19,429,505 to Plaintiff A; KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff C and D, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A is a person who, from September 20, 201, performed the work of steel plate processing, etc. at a factory located in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in the voice group of Chungcheongbuk-gun.
Plaintiff
B is the spouse of the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff C and D are the children of the Plaintiff.
B. On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff A: (a) placed a steel plate on the press machine within the Defendant’s factory; (b) processed it; and (c) laid the iron plate processed between the said machine’s compresseds in hand and the said machine’s compresseds into compresseds (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) thereby, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as cutting down 2, 3, and 4 water prices on the right side.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. An employer is obligated to maintain a physical environment and take necessary measures so that his/her employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing labor. Such duty of protection is an incidental duty recognized by the good faith principle in light of the substantive characteristics of an employment contract, and an employer who violates such duty bears liability for nonperformance and liability for damages caused by tort against an employee.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Da53086 delivered on April 25, 1997, 2000Da7301 delivered on November 26, 2002, etc.). In the case of this case, in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the plaintiffs, considering the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs and the overall purport of oral argument, the press machine operated by the plaintiff A was not in a state of full operation prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, and the defendant also seems to have been aware of such circumstances. Nevertheless, the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff A performed work in the above machine at the time of the occurrence of the accident of this case.
The defendant as an employer shall manage the machinery in the factory and thoroughly manage and supervise the employees such as the plaintiff A.