beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 24,922,404 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 14, 2010 to December 17, 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 11:00 on November 13, 2010, the Plaintiff assisted the Defendant’s operation of connecting the boxes and fire hydrant pipes with the boxes of water pipes from outdoor fire hydrant at the location of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Headquarters for the purpose of the Defendant’s construction and landscaping. During the adjustment process, there is a difference between the boxes of water pipes from outdoor fire hydrant at the time and the fire hydrant pipes, the part of the boxes loaded in the refrating season, carried out under the direction of signal Number B, was cut, and the Plaintiff fired one by one. The Plaintiff was faced with the head at both sides, and suffered from the injury, such as the mouth, the right confrating blood, and the external cerebrovassis, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) B served as the signal number of the above excavation machines, and the Plaintiff did not appear in the location of the signal number and the screener driver.
At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not directly assist the business of directly connecting the said warships to the fire hydrant pipes, but did not have fixed the working location as an assistance to the overall work.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 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 his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). In cases where an employee suffers damage due to his/her breach of such duty to protect employees, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). According to the above facts