beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is a juristic person operating elevator maintenance and repair management business, and the plaintiff is a worker belonging to the defendant.
B. On December 29, 2013, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of a report from the Plaintiff on the completion of the breakdown, sent to repair the said elevator upon receiving a report from the Plaintiff on the following: (a) on December 29, 2013: (b) the chemical No. 1 apartment No. 4 apartment complex No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant elevator”).
C. The Plaintiff, at around 10:00 on the same day, walked on the rooftop roof of an apartment apartment located adjacent to the above elevator in order to go up to a mechanical room that operates the instant elevator, and fells into a rooftop floor, which is approximately 4-5 meters below vadi, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the right-hand frame and the structural frame.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant of the plaintiff's assertion at the trial is the plaintiff's employer, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.
1.(c)
An accident described in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “accident”) has a duty to be liable for damages.
Furthermore, with respect to the computation of damages, ① the Plaintiff’s expected income shall be KRW 4,480,096 per month, not KRW 2.2 million per month, and ② the Plaintiff’s negligence to be considered in offsetting negligence is limited to 30%, ③ The solatium against the Plaintiff is recognized as KRW 30 million. ④ The Plaintiff’s medical care benefits, temporary disability benefits, and disability benefits, which the Plaintiff received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, are subject to deduction of the amount of damages.
3. The plaintiff, who is the defendant's employee, had been well aware of the apartment structure in which the elevator of this case was installed. Thus, the defendant, at the time of the accident of this case, installed facilities to prevent the falling of the time of movement for repair of the above apartment on the apartment rooftop (sect or sridge) or provided safety education separately.