1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of running the business of manufacturing and selling non-metallic metals, and the Plaintiff is a foreigner of Sri Lankan nationality, who works for the Defendant’s racing factory from April 1, 2013 to the Defendant’s racing business.

B. On January 13, 2015, at around 11:00, the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s racing plant to slick off the surface of the product and replaced the date of the slicker. During the process, the Plaintiff’s finger on the day when the power source location is divided, and the Plaintiff’s finger was contacted.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). (c)

The Plaintiff suffered an injury to an open wound (prehion) of the fourth fingers that require approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 10 evidence, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The main point of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is trying to replace the date rapidly due to the demand of the defendant's employee, etc., and the location of the power source was divided into two parts, and the accident of this case occurred and suffered injury. The defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 7,00,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. An employer of liability for damages is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and the employer is liable to compensate for damages caused by the employee’s breach of such duty of protection.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 Decided February 23, 199). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and returned to the instant case, the Defendant’s work of sexual reflector against the Plaintiff and other workers prior to the occurrence date of the instant accident, according to each of the safety education log (refer to the evidence Nos. 3 and 54 through 66 of the record).