beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,241,072 to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from December 24, 2015 to January 25, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff was employed by and working for the Defendant Company, and around 13:40 on December 24, 2015, when 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in the process of putting off strings through a cutting machine in a string box, and was cleaning the string box with C. At the time of cleaning, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cutting off off the upper right-free area into the upper right-hand part, cutting off by cutting off the string part of the Plaintiff’s strings on the wind where C is able to turn the power source location of the cutting machine, and cutting off by the cutting machine.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
From December 24, 2015 to September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 13,348,080 of temporary layoff benefits as industrial accident insurance proceeds due to the instant accident, and KRW 12,942,680 of medical care benefits, and KRW 20,510,870 of disability benefits, and KRW 46,80 of disability benefits.
[Evidence Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
Each entry, witness D and E, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading of each party]
2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) the occurrence of liability and limitation 1) The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was involved in the accident of this case while cleaning as ordered by the representative director of the defendant company, and that if the lids of the cutting machine at the time are opened, the safety center to prevent the operation of the cutting machine was not 20% of the plaintiff's negligence in light of the fact that the safety center to prevent the operation of the cutting machine was broken. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that even though the safety center to stop the operation of the cutting machine at the time of the accident was not broken, the plaintiff's fault caused by communication error with C and thus the negligence should be considered to exceed 80% of the plaintiff's negligence.