beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,578,818 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 24, 2013 to August 12, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The Plaintiff, at around 11:00 on July 24, 2013, engaged in the work of removing joint plates installed in the upper part of the air conditioners (Garo 4.2m x 3.5m x 3.5m x 1m m) installed in the air conditioners located in B, while the Plaintiff, as an employee belonging to the Defendant, was trying to transport out of the air conditioners installed in a space between air conditioners, while the jointboard goes beyond the balance, thereby causing injury, such as the 1st century, by shocking the Plaintiff’s brack, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received disability benefits of KRW 13,68,720, and KRW 17,183,710, based on the period of medical care from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service from July 24, 2013 to March 31, 2014 due to the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul's evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The occurrence of liability for damages and the limited defendant shall allow the plaintiff to work at a safe place, and the accident of this case occurred due to neglect of the duty of care to ensure that the plaintiff will move the joint board by providing for possession cars, etc. when the transported joint board is heavy, or that the plaintiff will move the joint board by allocating sufficient number of workers so that the worker will not perform unreasonable work.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
However, the Plaintiff also has been engaged in the same kind of affairs as at the time of the instant accident for at least four months, and therefore, the instant accident occurred due to its failure to fulfill its duty to ensure its safety, such as using the Gohap or entering the Gohap under the supervision of the Plaintiff or failing to work in a narrow place. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s negligence is deemed 35% and the Defendant’s liability is limited to 65%.
2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly.