beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,720,486 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 15, 2013 to January 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is an outdoor advertising agency registered in Ansan City as a commercial advertisement production and installation and controlled entity, and the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant since June 2012.
B. On July 15, 2014, at around 14:10, the Plaintiff, along with C, who is a person in charge of the Defendant’s field, sustained bodily injury, such as the bridge of a banner for the commercial citizen in front of the Sung-dong Home Plus in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff, as one hand, carried a banner from 7 to 8 knife the banner by other hand, and was on the top of 7 to 8 knife the banner, and suffered from the injury, such as the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the left part of the frame, and the part of the upper part of the upper part of the shoulder.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The gist of the party’s assertion 1) The Defendant, as an outdoor advertising agency, received education on the methods of preventing and responding to various accidents, which may occur in the course of carrying a banner on a regular basis once a year pursuant to the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act, and actively provided safety education, such as delivering it to employees.
In particular, the defendant paid safety belts to the employees of the plaintiff et al., and made them familiar with the method of using safety belts, and ordered them to fasten the safety belts at each time of work.
Therefore, the defendant fulfilled his duty to provide safety education and safety equipment, and the accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the plaintiff who performed work without putting the safety belt entirely.
B. 1) In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and the witness C’s testimony, the Defendant received cyber education once a year as an outdoor advertising agency, and the Defendant’s representative director D said that employees should pay attention to safety several times. However, the witness C’s testimony.