logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.11 2014가단28196
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000, Plaintiff C, and D respectively, and each of them from May 16, 2014.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The defendant is a company engaged in grain processing business and sales business, etc. in the 1318-2-No. 1318-ro Masung-si. A, a Chinese national, is an employee employed by the defendant.

Sheet A around July 2, 2013, around 05:30 on July 2, 2013, at the warehouse of the defendant's place of business, he she gets off the grain spather he gets off and covered the vinyl on the grain spather.

Article 24(1)(2) of the Act on the Protection and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information and Protection of Personal Information.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) . A, while the instant lawsuit was pending, died on December 10, 2014, and Plaintiff B’s spouse, Plaintiff C, and D took over the instant lawsuit with A’s children.

[Grounds for recognition: Evidence A Nos. 2, 5-8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as an employer A, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case, since he neglected his duty to maintain the working environment and to protect the worker from occupational accidents despite his duty to protect the worker from occupational accidents.

C. However, as A, who had been engaged in the above-mentioned work, has been negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to promote the safety of himself/herself, and such error seems to have influenced the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the instant accident, and thus, A’s liability is limited to 70% by taking account of the foregoing negligence of A.

(30%) 2. The ratio of negligence on the part of the plaintiff is as shown in the annexed sheet of calculation of damages, except as otherwise stated below.

arrow