logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.23 2015가단124107
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 103,602,137 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from May 19, 2015 to December 23, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (i) The Plaintiff served in the Defendant’s factory (hereinafter “Defendant factory”) located in 227 in the business-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, as an employee employed by the Defendant.

Luxembourg The Defendant left the service company to clean the water tank in the Defendant’s factory, and the service company cleaned the water tank on November 8, 2015, a Saturday, and the Plaintiff and B worked on duty.

Article 13:00 of the same day, the cleaning company came to contact that the water tank cleaning was completed, and the plaintiff opened a water tank water tank supply valve on the roof of the office installed underground, and B went to the water tank on the first floor of the defendant factory.

Applicant The Plaintiff fells into the floor by cutting down a bridge while reporting a slicker on the roof of the office, which was kept under the ground, and thereby suffered bodily injury, such as the 2nd emission frame, the 1st press pressure frame, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). On the other hand, there was an old fixed-type bridge installed on the part of the office installed underground, but the lower side was loaded with the goods, and the electric wires and the pipes were exposed to the lower side.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-8, Eul evidence 1-7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case, since he neglected his duty to maintain a working environment to prevent the plaintiff's employee from causing harm to the life and body of the worker while on duty and to protect the worker from occupational accidents, although he neglected his duty to protect the worker from occupational accidents.

(c) limitation of liability, provided that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, has been on the bridge, shall avoid falling.

arrow