beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 38,895,800 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from April 14, 2017 to December 18, 2020 for the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff was an employee who was employed in the production labor division in February 13, 2017 at C’s net factory, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s employer who merged C on October 10, 2017. (2) The Plaintiff suffered from injury to the left side of the cryptor in the Defendant’s net factory located in Kim Jong-siD around April 14, 2017, her body was cut down in the crypter room of the cryptor in the cryptor box of the cryptor, and the body was fasted into the cryptor, the pressure damage to the left side of the crypter, the damage to the upper left side of the crypter, the damage to the upper left side of the crypter, the damage to the upper left side of the crypter, the damage to the upper left side of the crypt, the damage to the upper left side of the crypt.
(3) With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service KRW 22,605,600 for temporary layoff benefits from April 14, 2017 to May 31, 2018, and KRW 8,100,520 for medical care benefits, and KRW 11,179,030 for disability benefits (Lump-sum payment), and KRW 11,179,030 for disability benefits. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the instant accident, and subparagraphs A through 4 (including household numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
B. The Defendant’s liability for damages is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and an employer bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 200; 99Da47129, May 16, 2000). In such a case, the employer is liable for tort liability in concurrence with the nonperformance liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da25844, Jun. 1, 2007). In light of the above legal doctrine, the employer is liable for tort liability.