beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 14, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that he was the Defendant’s employee, who was in the process of replacing the location of power distribution base from D Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., located in Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a studio 2 degrees of heart 1, 200, 200 video and 2 degrees of studio 1, 200, 2000 video and 2 degrees of body image.
Since the defendant bears the duty of protection or safety consideration under the labor contract as the plaintiff's employer, it has to provide the workers with the necessary education prior to the work, to notify the risk or method of the work, and to prevent the accident, it has neglected to provide the safety equipment.
Since the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident in violation of the Defendant’s duty of care or safety consideration, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 51,380,000,000,000,000,000,000 for daily loss income, KRW 14,305,248, 5,874,780, and future medical treatment expenses, KRW 1,200,000,000, and damages for delay.
2. 1) First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee when the instant accident occurred. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative director E are deemed to have been the Defendant’s employee. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were to be independent of the Defendant’s employee, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) on January 11, 2011, a written agreement (the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the evidence No. 7) stating that “the Plaintiff is responsible for operating the equipment and vehicles, the Plaintiff subcontract the Defendant’s construction, and the Plaintiff’s construction is in the Defendant’s name)” (the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the evidence No. 7 does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleadings
According to the above facts, after preparing the above agreement on January 11, 201, the plaintiff worked as an employee who provided labor in the dependent relationship with the defendant.
A business operator who is more independent than that of the defendant and entered into a subcontract with the defendant.