beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 66,132,209 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from November 11, 2016 to March 13, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”); C (hereinafter “victim”) is an employee belonging to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”); Defendant A is the owner and driver of E-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”); and Defendant B’s federation (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant A with respect to the instant taxi.
B. At around 00:30 on April 25, 2015, when Defendant A, a driver of the instant taxi, who was running around the said road, had a sign indicating that D had been in the construction process on the two-lane 4-lanes of the lux road in the direction direction (around 30 meters prior to the work point) and a cut-off line (a light-line container) installed in the direction to indicate that D had been in the construction process on the two-lanes of the lux road among four-lanes of the lux road, and sent a water signal with a light signal rod to control vehicles travelling around the road, the victim was under the direction to check the receipt and sign of the luxian, and caused the luxian to suffer injury, such as the lux name, etc. by shocking the lux.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident and paid 13,525,020 won of medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act from September 25, 2015 to November 10, 2016, and paid 21,489,060 won of temporary layoff benefits, and currently, paid disability benefits to the victims.
(Lump-sum conversion of disability compensation amount is KRW 49,53,177). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole oral argument
2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;
A. According to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant A, the driver of the instant taxi, is the location of the accident.