logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2021.02.02 2020가단50869
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,69,002 as well as 5% per annum from November 29, 2018 to February 2, 2021, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company that produces and sells composts by processing it as a fire fighting unit. The Plaintiff is a person employed by the Defendant around July 2018.

B. On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was in charge of removing foreign substances, such as Gemangiums and stone straws, in a luxle in the Defendant’s 2 factory located in Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant work”), and his hand was in charge of the business of removing foreign substances (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the 3 handets of complete steel, sullle, sullle, sullle, and sullle of sullle, and sullle of sullle, and sulted sule of sule. On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the 6HLE, sule 10HLE, sule fladrying of open water, and dule flafing flafing of dule flaf, and f-Y fladulum flafing of the sule part of the 3rd part of the water department, but was under the f-Y flafing flafing of the sule part of the front part, flaging of the 3rd part, etc.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the result of a commission of physical appraisal to C hospital of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the event of the occurrence of damages, (1) an employer bears the duty to maintain a physical environment and to take necessary measures so that a person under consideration does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing labor, and such duty to protect is an incidental duty recognized under the good faith principle, taking into account the special characteristics of the employment contract, and the employer who violates such duty is liable for damages to the person under consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997; 2000Da7301, Nov. 26, 2002). The fact that the Plaintiff suffered the instant accident while serving in the Defendant’s factory is recognized as above.

arrow