beta
Text
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim for damages (preliminary claim)” is re-written in the following “the second part,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Parts to be dried;
A. Pursuant to Article 23 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019) and Article 24, 32, and 42 of the Rules on the Standards for Occupational Safety and Health, the Defendant, an employer, has a duty of care to prevent accidents, such as providing a safe bridge so that workers may fall at a place at a risk of fall, and providing a sufficient protective device, etc.
hereinafter the same shall apply.
According to his image, the plaintiff's crashed bridge height exceeds 2 meters on a so-called A-called bridge, and the plaintiff was faced with the accident in this case since it was cut from the upper part of the above bridge at a height of about 3 meters, and turned off from the upper part of the above bridge, and the defendant can be recognized as having additionally installed a bridge with knob and a rail in addition to the existing A-type bridge after the accident in this case. The plaintiff's height at the time of the accident in this case is high to the level that the plaintiff's work level at the time of the accident in this case should be lowered from the upper part of the bridge to the point that the safety of the A-type bridge at the site at the time of the accident is not sufficiently secured. If the plaintiff was working using the pipe installed after the accident in this case, it seems highly likely that the accident in this case would not occur. Nevertheless, the defendant installed a pipe-type A-type bridge or a down-type A-type bridge construction by means of assembling around the A-type bridge where the plaintiff was working.