beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 157,602,802 for each of the plaintiffs and its related KRW 5% per annum from June 20, 2018 to November 6, 2020.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The network D, the Plaintiffs’ children, (hereinafter “the deceased”).
(2) On February 2018, 2018, the deceased was driving a vehicle in the Defendant’s warehouse that is engaged in food distribution business through E, a human resources supplier company, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”) around 10:05 on June 20, 2018, while carrying a ice stuff in the Defendant’s freezing warehouse located in Kim Jong-si, the deceased was engaged in the work of transporting a ice stuff in the Defendant’s freezing warehouse located in Kim Jong-si on June 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the head was found to have been removed from the street of the mast and the Hd part without awareness (hereinafter “instant accident”), and died on June 22, 2018.
3) With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiffs received KRW 122,640 for temporary layoff benefits from June 20, 2018 to June 22, 2018 from Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and KRW 124,643,580 for medical care benefits, bereaved family members and funeral expenses during the period of the medical care from June 20, 2018, (i) and (ii) the amount of KRW 122,640 for temporary layoff benefits, and (iii) the amount of family members and funeral expenses (based on recognition).
(2) Each entry and video of subparagraph (1) through (15), 27 through 51, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings
B. The Defendant’s liability for damages is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and an employer bears the duty 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 in the course of providing labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 200; 99Da47129, May 16, 2000). In such a case, the employer is liable for tort liability in concurrence with the nonperformance liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da25844, Jun. 1, 2007). In light of the above legal doctrine, the employer is liable for tort liability.