logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.17 2016가단305163
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,892,493 as well as 5% per annum from December 2, 2013 to August 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling textiles, and the plaintiff is a worker belonging to the defendant company.

On December 2, 2013, 11:30 on December 2, 2013, 2013, the Defendant’s employees B (Vetnam) discontinued 27kgs in the factory of the Defendant Company, carrying 24 gs in the indoor gate and moving from the indoor gate, and changed the Plaintiff who was in the management of the letter box at the work site.

Therefore, when the plaintiff attached the plaintiff's death, on the wind that the wave, which the plaintiff had received the plaintiff's death, was faced by the plaintiff's flag, and the left knee caused an accident that is plucking into the plaintiff's death.

(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)

The Plaintiff received respectively KRW 5,057,070 of temporary layoff benefits, medical care benefits 4,362,300 of disability benefits, and KRW 3,516,320 of disability benefits through the medical care period from December 2, 2013 to March 25, 2014, after receiving an industrial accident judgment from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 3 and video (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability and the above evidence, the defendant, as an employer, has a duty to establish a safe physical environment so that the plaintiff, as an employee, does not harm life, body, and health, and to take necessary measures in the course of providing the above labor, thereby preventing the accident in advance. Thus, the defendant is deemed to have caused the accident in this case due to negligence that failed to perform the above duty.

arrow