2016 Ghana 18813 Compensation (san)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

April 14, 2017

June 16, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 38, 827, 770 won with 5% interest per annum from December 10, 2016 to June 16, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 10% is borne by the Plaintiff, 90% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43, 827, 770 won with 15% interest per annum from the next day of service of the written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the actual operator of "00 facilities" who operates the facility business in Yangsan-si, and the plaintiff is the employee employed by the defendant.

B. On June 25, 2015, at AA factory located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Inc., Ltd., the Plaintiff, under the Defendant’s direction, was faced with an accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), which fells into the first floor floor and fells into the first floor of the first floor on the 1st floor and the second floor steel rail under the Defendant’s direction. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered an injury, such as pulververization and cutting down of the upper right frame, and brain, etc.

C. The Defendant did not pay KRW 16,380,00 in total amount of the compensation for business suspension incurred from August 2015 to May 2016, 2016 and the compensation for business suspension incurred from January 2016 to June 2016 due to the instant accident, which was subject to an order of a fine of KRW 2,00,00 from the Ulsan District Court to a fine of KRW 17,10,000,000 due to the instant crime. The Defendant was charged with a fine of KRW 3 million by the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office for a criminal offense. “The Plaintiff did not pay KRW 17,10,000 in total the compensation for business suspension incurred from June 2015 to December 20 of the same year.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and Eul evidence 1-2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act

1) Occurrence of liability

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to make disaster reports as provided by the Labor Standards Act as the plaintiff's employer.

2) Calculation of the amount of compensation

According to the above facts, the total amount of compensation for business suspension from the accident of this case to June 2016 is KRW 33,480,000, which occurred due to the accident of this case, and KRW 347,770.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,827,770 ( KRW 347,770 + KRW 33,480, KRW 00) and damages for delay.

3) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

The defendant asserts that since the accident of this case occurred by the plaintiff's negligence, the defendant should be exempted from liability and the amount of compensation should be reduced.

However, the purpose of the accident compensation system under the Labor Standards Act is not to ask an employer who operates an enterprise in which the risk of disaster exists, with the worker who provides labor under his control, not to ask for whether the accident occurred or not, and to compensate for the loss suffered by the worker due to the disaster. Thus, it is not required that the worker's occupational injury or disease is due to the employer's negligence, but not to limit the liability for compensation or to limit the crime of compensation in consideration of the negligence of the worker. In this regard, the principle of liability for negligence and the theory of comparative negligence does not apply to the above accident compensation liability except as otherwise provided in the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu351, Oct. 13, 1981).

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the accident of this case, Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act (i.e., Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act) as an exception to the principle of accident compensation liability as above with high-priced accident of this case, where an employee suffers from an occupational injury or disease due to gross negligence, or where an employer obtained the Labor Relations Commission's approval for the negligence, he/she is unable to pay compensation for suspension of work or compensation for disability. Thus, the defendant's above assertion on different premise is without merit.

B. Liability for tort

1) Occurrence of liability

An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, or health, during the process of providing his/her labor service. In cases where an employee suffers damage by violating such a duty of protection, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da44, Jul. 27, 2001, etc.).

In addition to the accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff claims consolation money for damages on the ground of violation of the duty to protect under the labor contract. In full view of the purport of the 6-year re-determination and the entire argument of evidence No. 1-6 of the above ground for recognition as above, the Plaintiff did not pay safety equipment to the Plaintiff even though the 1st floor and the 2nd floor working by the Plaintiff had been provided with safety equipment, such as safety lines and safety caps in order to work in the state where the 1st floor and the 2nd floor in which the 1st floor in which the Plaintiff was working and the 2nd floor in which the 1st floor were without floor, but it is recognized that the Defendant did not pay such stability equipment to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant’s tort liability against the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty to protect safety and safety consideration against the Plaintiff

2) Calculation of consolation money

In consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments, including the background of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence, the degree of disability caused by the accident, the progress after the accident, and the Plaintiff’s age, the Defendant’s consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff shall be KRW 5,00,000.

C. Sub-committee

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from December 10, 2016 to June 16, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, as the sum of KRW 38,827,770 (33, 827, 770 won for accident compensation + KRW 5,000 for consolation money + KRW 00 for consolation money) and as the Plaintiff seeks, to dispute about the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages for delay calculated from June 16, 2017, which is the date of this decision, to the day of full payment, by 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, Postal Officials