logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.07 2018가단562373
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From January 2018 to March 15, 2018, the Defendant issued a contract to Nonparty D with respect to framework construction, including molds and non-divating construction, on the land (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, by setting the construction cost of KRW 120 million and the construction period from January 2018 to March 15, 2018.

B. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff was employed by D and worked as a non-airway at the construction site of this case. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff felled at a height of 3 meters during the process of dismantling the scams (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff sustained injury, such as pressure duplicating No. 1 and 3 in the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant is the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “former Occupational Safety and Health Act”).

(2) The Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident, such as failing to provide the fall prevention facilities or equipment, etc., despite the contractor’s obligation to take industrial accident prevention measures and safety measures against his/her employees pursuant to Article 29(2) through (4) of the same Act, as the “business owner who operates a business that gives a contract by separating a part of the business and gives a contract,” under Article 29(1)1 of the same Act. However, the Defendant was liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident. (2) The Defendant ordered the instant construction to the Defendant, who was employed by the Plaintiff, was engaged in management and supervision, and the Plaintiff does not fall under the business owner who is obligated to take industrial accident prevention measures, etc.

B. As to the determination, Article 29(1) of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act is conducted at the same place.

arrow