beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 49,716,032 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 4, 201 to March 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In November 201, the Defendant Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant Jung-gu”) ordered Defendant B to pay KRW 9,556,00 for the cost of external wall painting work. (2) Defendant B employed the Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff perform the above external wall painting work.
On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) carried out the above external wall painting; (b) completed the A.M. work, and (c) completed the occupation process, divided work hours into three parts; and (d) fixed work hours into two parts; and (c) fixed the A.M. in line with electric vessel licenses.
The plaintiff fells on three floors while performing the work of painting work on the same day, and suffered injuries, such as the thalle and the thalle frame, etc.
(Grounds for recognition). [Case] without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the result of the commission of physical examination to the president of the Guro University, the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. An employer of the responsibility bears the duty to maintain a physical environment and to take necessary measures so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, or health, and such duty of protection is an incidental duty recognized in accordance with the good faith principle, taking into account the characteristics of the employment contract (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997). In this case, the Health Center and the Defendant B, the employer, took measures, such as: (a) taking a fall prevention device against the employee who is sealed on the outer wall; (b) placing the safety personnel; and (c) preventing the employee from drinking alcohol; and (d) taking such measures as preventing the employee from drinking alcohol, the Plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages therefrom
C. The limitation of liability, however, is limited to Defendant B’s responsibilities at 30%, since the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, must fix the Plaintiff’s own solid fixed device and have neglected to work in a clear mental condition that does not drink alcohol, even though he was negligent.
The plaintiff is responsible for the defendant Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.