beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from November 26, 2016, with respect to the Plaintiff A, KRW 44,224,35, and KRW 5,00,000, and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts 1) The Defendant employed the Plaintiff while performing the work of removing and repairing the roof of the swine Republic of Korea located within the farms located in Yangju-si. (2) On November 26, 2016, at around 9:45:00 a.m., Plaintiff A supported the roof, and Plaintiff A fell into the cement floor below approximately 3 meters, while Plaintiff A was a tree supported by the roof.
(3) In the event of this case, the plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as an an alley, etc., due to the accident of this case. (4) The defendant did not have the plaintiff A wear a safety belt or take other measures to prevent the fall risk.
5 The plaintiff B is the spouse of the plaintiff A.
B. The defendant, as the user of the plaintiff A, could sufficiently anticipate that there was a danger of fall when removing or repairing the roof on the roof of the swine Republic of Korea, was negligent in having the plaintiff A wear a safety belt, etc. or in failing to take other measures to prevent other hazards. As such, the accident of this case occurred, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages arising from the accident of this case.
C. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, notified the Plaintiff A of the risk or safety rules of the roof removal work, and the Plaintiff neglected to perform his duty of care to disregard it and to promote his own safety, and the instant accident occurred due to the collapse of the roof on the wind. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.
However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the safety rules in advance.
There is no evidence to prove that safety devices have been provided, such as safety appearance, safety level, etc., and otherwise, the plaintiff violated the duty of due care that the plaintiff should normally have.