1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,012,244 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 16, 2016 to February 22, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a juristic person running a motor vehicle comprehensive maintenance business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who concluded a daily work contract with the Defendant on May 13, 2016 for KRW 150,000 and working hours for eight hours.

B. At around 14:30 on May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff confirmed whether the bus roof was placed above the bus roof in the Defendant’s business place located in Busan-si, Busan-si, the Plaintiff felled from approximately 2 meters high, and thereby, was injured by the injury, such as the structural frame of the left-hand body.

C. The Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment from May 15, 2016 to March 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer of the basis of liability bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such duty of protection.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). The Plaintiff’s bus plate confirmation work requires the use of a bridge, etc. to confirm the purchase price of the bus.

The defendant, as an employer, placed other workers who can set the lower part of a bridge when necessary, provided protection outfits, and conducted safety education on the matters of care at the time of work and use of equipment, etc., in spite of the duty to consider the safety of the above plaintiff, he did not properly perform this duty, and let the plaintiff confirm the money using a bridge. It is difficult to view that the defendant properly performed the duty to protect the body of the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that he is not the employer of the plaintiff, as seen earlier.