beta
Text
1. From September 8, 2013 to May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 2,207,826 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact-finding results with respect to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, C, and D, on July 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) entered the Plaintiff Company as a engineer; and (b) was engaged in NEW PX-IBL work at the Ppeck installation site in Ulsan-gu F (State) located in Ulsan-gu F (State) where the Plaintiff Company was subcontracted to the Plaintiff Company; and (c) on August 20, 2013, the Defendant is deemed to have lost the center center of the Plaintiff Company, which was placed to prevent falling into the opening part of the opening where the ray was not placed, while performing the safety net to prevent falling at around 16:30 on August 20, 2013.
Section 2013, 2013
9. 8. At around 09:30, the Defendant suffered an accident (hereinafter referred to as “second accident”) resulting from an accident by taking pipes in the opposite part of the floor, resulting in a string of the opposite part of the accident (hereinafter referred to as “second accident”). The Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant suffered an injury by the string of the string part of the string part, the string part of the string part, the string part of the string part, the string part of the string part, the string part of the string part, the string part of the string part, the upper part of the string part, and the st
B. According to the above facts, in installing a safety net for the prevention of fall, the Plaintiff is negligent in failing to fulfill its duty of care, even though it is possible for workers to confirm in advance by marking warning, if there is a concern that workers will suffer from the danger of falling.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Defendant for damages caused by the instant accident.
In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that all of the defendant's injury and disease did not have any causal relationship with the accident of this case, but if there is an external shock on the shoulder part, the king becomes worse.