logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.12 2018가단255086
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,708,390 as well as 5% per annum from May 9, 2018 to August 12, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The parties 1) The defendant is a corporation engaged in reinforced concrete construction works, soil construction business, etc., which is a construction site of Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, and Ddong E (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

(2) On May 5, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant with a period of contract of one month from May 5, 2018 to June 4, 2018, setting a daily wage of 100,000 won per comprehensive daily wage. From that time, the Plaintiff worked as a daily worker at the construction site of this case according to the Defendant’s instructions.

B. On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered injury due to the spreading of the left-hand inside of the wind, during the process of releasing the horizontal timber of the pole from the underground parking lot at the instant construction site on May 9, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

With respect to the instant accident involving the receipt of insurance benefits, the Plaintiff received 3,313,200 won of temporary layoff benefits from May 10, 2018 to August 29, 2018 and 36,135,000 won of disability benefits (Lump-sum payment) from Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) 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 the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health during the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such a duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6015, Mar. 10, 2000; 99Da47129, May 16, 2000; 2000Da47129, May 16, 200). In such a case, an employer is equally applicable to a temporary employee who is not a regular employee, and an employer is liable for damages arising from a tort, concurrently

arrow