logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.15 2014나16720
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of participation shall be borne by the defendant.

3. The first instance.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On December 7, 2010, the Plaintiff, a worker of the Defendant, was cleaning the luxler as a rush for cleaning the luxler at the workplace, while the luxler, who was fluxing the rush, went to the right hand on the right hand, while the rush was being rush in the workplace.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The Plaintiff received treatment by suffering from injury of the tropolym fever on the right side, the fact that the Plaintiff suffered from injury of the tropolym fever on the right side, the fact that the tropolym fever of 2,3,4,5 water development, the right side 2,3,4,5 water tropolym fever, the right side 2,3,4,5 water tropolym fever.

The Plaintiff was subject to drug treatment with multiple bruculatory fladism, and there was an obstacle to the side bruculatory brusium (former 0 degrees and 50 degrees of fladulites) of Section 1 of the right 2 balance, the steel of 3 balance of the right 4 balance, the steel of 4 balance of the right 5 balance, the steel of 5 balance of the right 5 balance (75% limit of the scope of movement), the side bruculum in the right brusium (former 45 degrees, 40 degrees, 40 degrees, 40 degrees, 40 degrees, 80 degrees, 80 degrees, 80 degrees, 80 degrees).

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 19,538,510 of temporary disability compensation benefits from December 7, 2010 to November 30, 201, and KRW 15,337,910 of medical care benefits, and additionally received KRW 292,390 of medical care benefits after February 7, 2014.

In addition, the plaintiff is receiving disability benefits as a beneficiary of disability benefits, and when calculating it as a lump sum disability benefits, 57,462,060 won is considered as disability benefits.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not educate the Plaintiff to stop the operation of the machinery in cleaning so that it can be cleaned by the promotion of the Defendant’s affiliation, etc. to workers like the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, who operated the said machinery, and the cleaning work has been underway.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 2 and 3 evidence (including each number of partial heading), Eul's witness B, and the court of first instance.

arrow