beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the assertion on the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a worker belonging to D who runs the cleaning service business, and C is a business owner of D. 2) A corporation B before division (hereinafter “B before division”) is a company established for the purpose of shipbuilding, repair and sale of ships.
B B before the division changed the trade name to H Co., Ltd. on June 3, 2019 during the instant lawsuit, and established the Defendant by dividing the parts of shipbuilding, special shipbuilding, offshore plant, and engine machinery business, and the Defendant succeeded to the rights and obligations held by B before the division with respect to the Plaintiff, thereby taking over the status of the lawsuit in B before the division.
(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” without distinguishing B and the Defendant before division. 3) The Defendant is a stock company E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) on May 7, 2012.
4) On March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered the Defendant’s Defendant located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu to check the leakage of the International LNG Line Cargo Tanks; and (b) ordered D to re-subcontract the cleaning work inside the said LNG Line Cargo Tank to D on January 4, 2013; (c) the Plaintiff, around 09:00 on March 31, 2013, fell into the opening part of the GNG Line 3, the cargo tank height of which is 24.5m high and 24.5m high in the foregoing LNG Line 24.5m high.
(5) The Plaintiff was injured by the instant accident, i.e., the bridge, the bridge, the bridge, the blood transfusion, the spawn and the spawn spawn, etc., and the Plaintiff was hospitalized from March 31, 2013 to October 28, 2013, and the hospital treatment was received from the next day to April 30, 2016. (6) The Defendant’s joint representative director was a general manager for the safety and health of employees belonging to the in-house contractor, and the Defendant was obligated to take measures for the safety of each employee as the contractor. However, the Plaintiff is working at a place where the risk of fall.