logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.08 2014가단81729
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,035,251 as well as 5% per annum from December 25, 2013 to July 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On April 9, 1987, the plaintiff was a person who was employed by the defendant company and was employed in the workplace as a staff of the main workplace of the main workplace, and was employed as a principal at the time of the following accident.

On December 25, 2013, at around 02:00, the Plaintiff, while being in charge of mechanical operation in the mechanical room in the Defendant factory, was faced with the Plaintiff’s accident that caused the injury to the Plaintiff, such as the images, etc. of the string and the string of the strings, by leaving the string to remove the strings attached to the strings, while carrying out the strings directly between the Plaintiff and the string of the strings (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff was working alone, and the safety management officer was not assigned to the site.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence 6 (including the number of branches) and images; the result of the physical appraisal commission to the head of the East Asia University Hospital; the result of fact inquiry; the testimony of the witness C and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As incidental obligations under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health, while providing his/her labor. In cases where an employee suffers damage by violating such duty of protection, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6015, Mar. 10, 200; 99Da47129, May 16, 2000). According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to educate and supervise the employees working at a dangerous place such as the workplace, and the safety management officer was not assigned at the time of the instant accident.

arrow