beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,468,974 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 7, 201 to February 5, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (i) The Defendant was awarded a contract for a new construction of a reasonable factory on the new side of Changcheon Co., Ltd. at the time of Jincheon, and was under construction work around September 201.
on September 7, 2011, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a daily employee, and had the Defendant perform the work on the board of the factory Dong roof at the construction site.
• Five workers, including the Plaintiff, worked on the roof of the above factory building at a height of 6 to 7 meters above the ground level of 10:30 on the same day. They instructed workers, who had a board monet electricity on the roof of the board, to sit to other workers on the roof, and the plaintiff was faced with an accident that the plaintiff fells on the ground in the course of following the direction.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff did not have facilities to prevent the fall around the falling factory, and the Plaintiff employed on the date of the instant accident did not receive special safety education.
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Witness B’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case, since he neglected his duty to maintain a working environment to prevent the plaintiff's employee from causing harm to the life and body of the worker while on duty and to protect the worker from occupational accidents, although he neglected his duty to protect the worker from occupational accidents.
C. The limitation of liability: (a) the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has been engaged in work on the roof 6 to 7 meters above the ground, was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to avoid falling, despite the fact that he/she had a duty of care to promote his/her safety; and (b) such mistake appears to have influenced the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’