beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,640,168 as well as 5% per annum from April 8, 2013 to June 15, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 20, 2013, the Defendant was a corporation established for the purpose of the construction waste disposal business, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Company as a daily worker and engaged in the collection of construction waste.
On April 8, 2013, at around 13:00, the Plaintiff, while taking a boiler fuel tank and going up to the house roof of a detached house at the site of removal of the building located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as a stoves, by falling down the boiler fuel tank on the floor, and falling down on the floor, and stove the stoves of the stoves.
(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)
The Plaintiff received respectively payment of temporary layoff benefits of 99,946,80 won from April 8, 2013 to December 31, 2016, based on the period of medical care, from April 31, 2013 to December 31, 2016, and disability benefits of 209,35,470 won, and disability benefits of 142,669,742 (Conversion).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, video (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above recognition of liability and the above evidence, the defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, is obligated to establish a safe physical environment, such as installing safety net or rain pipes, and to take necessary measures in the work site so that no harm to life, body, and health is inflicted on the plaintiff's employer in the process of removing the above building, and thus, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence that failed to perform the above duty. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident in this case.
(b) limitation of liability, however, as recognized by the foregoing evidence, the plaintiff should have also sought the safety of his/her own by placing his/her roof on the roof of the building using the bridge.