beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2, 2015, the Defendant is the owner of a newly built multi-household house in Gwangju-si, and entered into a construction subcontract with D as to the construction of the said newly constructed construction, such as steel reinforced assembly, concrete building, etc. among the said new construction works.
B. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff was faced with the instant accident, which fell on the ground (hereinafter “instant accident”) and fell on the ground, while the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of getting off the floor by taking steel bars around the fourth floor of the building in the said new construction site.
C. The Plaintiff received a diagnosis of pulverization of sulvers on both sides due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, witness D's testimony, whole purport of pleading
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, as the user at the construction site of this case, conducted safety education on the risk of accidents in the course of the work, installed adequate safety facilities at the construction site, etc., and caused the instant accident by neglecting the safety consideration or prevention of danger, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
Damage suffered by the Plaintiff is KRW 6,816,409, which deducts disability benefits and temporary layoff benefits received from Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and KRW 5,000,00,000 due to the instant accident, from the date of occurrence of the instant accident to May 12, 2018, which is KRW 57,522,832.
B. According to the evidence above, the defendant's purchase of industrial accident compensation insurance as the business owner is recognized in relation to the instant construction work.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had a direct employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there was a duty of safety consideration as the plaintiff's employer.
A contractor shall apply to the contract or instruction.