logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.04.22 2014가단10184
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On November 13, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant (Evidence A No. 8) and worked until January 31, 2011 at the Cheongjin-gu C Branch Cocoper (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as a re-refluent nuclear escape certificate (No. 4-5) due to the re-refluence in the process of moving the birth device from the workplace of this case to the Doma.

(A) Evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and Evidence Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 / [based on recognition] of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, other than as set out above, the Plaintiff was engaged in the work of making the Plaintiff go to the Doma, citing a maximum of 30 km in the workplace of this case.

However, in the poor working environment, the Defendant encouraged the Plaintiff to supply a parasite exceeding the scope of the Plaintiff’s work, and did not prepare an appropriate equipment or working environment for protecting the Plaintiff’s body safety, and did not take any proper follow-up measures after the accident, thereby failing to perform the duty of protection as an employer.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered from the injury on the part of Heluri, and was not treated in a timely manner.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to nonperformance.

An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, and an employee bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving his/her human and physical environment so as not to harm life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, and an employee is liable to compensate for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129 delivered on May 16, 200). The workplace of this case was supplied with maximum of 30 km for the Plaintiff’s work between November 12, 2010 and January 26, 201, but is limited to twice.

arrow