beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 142,157,601 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 19, 2016 to August 30, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company engaged in manufacturing industrial machinery, such as presses and metal type, and the Plaintiff was employed as an employee in charge of assembling press machinery from January 7, 2013.
B. From December 15, 2016 to December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff and C, a director in charge of the Defendant’s technical business, were dispatched for repair of 600 tons presses (E) that the Defendant produced and supplied to the first factory of the D Company located in the Sacheon City of China (hereinafter “Sacheon Company”).
C. On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff’s repair of the press machinery at around 21:20, the Plaintiff’s local workers belonging to the Nonparty Company (“the instant accident”) are “an accident in which the Plaintiff’s left-hand part of the press machinery was sealed because the local workers belonging to the Nonparty Company were clerbracs for transmitting press parts, which are heavy objects, as a clercs installed in the factory ceiling, in the process of carrying out the press machinery at around 21:20.
(D) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as pressure harming the left-hand side. D. At the time of the instant accident, in order to repair the said presses, a heavy object, was essential to move the presses parts. However, the Plaintiff, alone, worked only with the above local Chinese workers and hand signals without any other signal or interpretation, and there was no safety education, etc. to prevent the fall risk of heavy objects against the said local workers driving the said presses. [In the absence of any ground for recognition, there was no ground for dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 1, 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the arguments, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant violated his duty of care as an employer and caused the plaintiff to be held liable for tort.
(b) limitation of liability, provided that the above presses parts exceed 5,700 km.