beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From January 7, 2013 to January 6, 2015, Plaintiff A is an employee who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant upon setting a contract term, and Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s wife, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D’s children.
B. On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff A, along with F, who is an employee belonging to the Defendant, performed the replacement work near the top of the utility pole (hereinafter referred to as “around December 13, 2013”), and H, who is an employee belonging to the Defendant, supervised the said work by the head of the field office.
C. At the time, F was engaged in the work of cutting up the tacker listed on the upper part of the telecommunication line, which is linked to the kicker, with the special high-tension cable with the flow of electricity of 22,905, and the lower part of the twit line (hereinafter referred to as the “tacker 1”) which connects the tacker with the lower part of the tacker, and the Plaintiff A was engaged in the work of cutting up the tacker listed on the telegraph to the racker (the wire with the death line and the electric wires with no electricity), and installing a new racker.
F When the Plaintiff A installed a new opening machine, the F installed a new line to connect the new opening line to the new opening line, and installed a street line on the front line, and installed it over the lower part of the structure that made it possible to install electric wires, and the Plaintiff A installed a new opening line to connect the new opening line over the said bed (the connecting part is 5 the lower part) to the new opening line (the connecting part).
E. As seen above, while Plaintiff A had connected a new ridrid line to the new ridrid line, the flow of electricity of the ridrid line was contacted with the unfolding part of the flow of electricity, and the current was flowed on the new ridrid line where Plaintiff A was able to flow.
As a result, Plaintiff A suffered electric images on both arms, knife, and the left-hand bridge.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 7, and Eul.