beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 11, 2013 to October 16, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The Plaintiff is a person employed on July 1, 2013 and provided labor to the Defendant.
(2) On July 11, 2013, at around 10:15, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a thring on the left-hand flag, by installing an Arabic verging material listed on a bridge at the car clubs located in the Cheongju-si Office C, Cheongju-si, for the purpose of preventing the bridge of a tent sewage pipe.
(hereinafter referred to as "accident of this case"). [Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, purport of whole pleadings]
B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer liable to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, as an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the employment contract, and as a result, an employee is liable to compensate for damages
(2) The defendant, who is an employer, of the plaintiff, neglected to take safety measures, such as having the plaintiff work on the bridge while having the plaintiff work on the bridge, in a case where the defendant, who is an employer of the plaintiff, is engaged in the above business at the risk of the accident, and due to the occurrence of the accident in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case caused the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tortfeasor due to the accident in this case.
C. On the other hand, while limiting liability, the plaintiff is also in need of separate attention in carrying out dangerous work such as the sloping work, even though he is in need of separate attention, he is negligent in performing independently, while he is making a sloping, and the plaintiff's act was also a cause of the accident in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to consider it from the amount of damages, but it is reasonable to 30% as the negligence is 30%.
Therefore, the defendant.