logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단211398
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The gold-gu Co., Ltd. concluded a contract with Sungdo Co., Ltd. on the establishment of the cudio workplace, and entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on April 15, 2014 on the removal and installation of the hudio facility among the above cudio facility works.

B. The Defendant awarded a sub-subcontract to Nonparty D (Representative E) whose director C was to remove and install the above hedge spopter spopher.

C. On May 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, employed by C, while going up to the mobile lectures of about 1.5 meters high from May 24, 2014, was moving the said lectures, and one wheels was cut away from the home of the floor, and suffered injuries in the process.

(hereinafter referred to as "accidents"). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the witness F's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant ordered the removal and installation work of the Hague Park to C while reserving the specific direction and supervision, and provided materials and facilities to C with only the construction work supplied and subcontracted labor contract to C. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant are in a substantial relationship with an employee of the plaintiff and the defendant. In such a case, the defendant neglected his duty of care to supervise and supervise the plaintiff to prevent the fall accident by providing safety equipment anticipated at the time of work. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.

B. In the case of a labor contract such as the case where a person who awards a contract has reserved the right of direction and supervision to the contractor, even though he is a contractor, he is liable for compensation as an employer, but Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da37676 Decided November 10, 2005; 2004Da37676 Decided April 25, 1997.

arrow