beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,299,80 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 21, 2015 to October 14, 2016.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In fact, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant from March 5, 2012, and was employed in the Defendant’s factory. From July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered two-thirds to three-three images from a fire that occurred in a telegraph, due to a fire exceeding the machine used to rupture heat in a heating channel installed in the Defendant factory, around July 25, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. As incidental obligations under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor, and where an employee suffers damage by violating such duty of protection, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 2000; 99Da47129, May 16, 2000). According to the above findings of recognition, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff as an employer to provide work, while maintaining safety conditions, such as confirming the existence of the above facilities, etc. prior to the work so that the Plaintiff could not harm the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 10 through 12, the plaintiff may recognize that the plaintiff paid KRW 11,29,800 in total from March 2015 to the video treatment expenses incurred from the instant accident.
B. The background and result of the accident of consolation money, the Plaintiff’s age and family relationship, and other arguments in this case.