beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,911,946 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 20, 2013 to February 10, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 08:30 on May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) while getting on and off the date-type bridge at the ocean assembly site where the Defendant was awarded a contract, on May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was at around 08:30, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the 2nd-down of the bridge, etc., by getting off the bridge and falling on the floor of the vessel, and falling on the top of the immediately preceding day (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
2) The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s employer.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 3 to 6 evidence, witness Eul's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
B. The defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, bears the duty to maintain a physical environment to prevent harm to life and physical health in the course of providing the above labor, and to take necessary measures, and to prevent the fall under the Industrial Safety and Health Act. However, the defendant neglected to take safety measures to prevent the collapse of the bridge, and caused the plaintiff to fall on the floor, and caused the accident of this case to be caused by the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
C. The limitation of liability, however, the plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that the bridges are likely to be cut off compared to the ordinary level because the plaintiff also has a lot of water on the floor, so it could have been more likely that it would have been done by pursuing safety and paying attention to the defendant by making a more active request for the drainage work, etc., and such negligence of the plaintiff was also a cause for the occurrence and expansion of damages. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the defendant's liability in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, but it is reasonable to view that the ratio exceeds 50%, so the defendant's responsibility is the remainder of 50%.