beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,681,712 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 6, 2017 to July 26, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From March 17, 2017, the Defendant Company performed the d 440m section of C’D located at the time of the State, and performed the work by installing a bridge at the site and fixing the bridge lines as a fruit between the construction angles (hereinafter “instant construction”). B.
On May 6, 2017, the human parts belonging to the Defendant Company were bound by 1,2, and 1,1.5 meters high from the surface of the water in order to perform repair work between D 8 and 9, with approximately 1,00 square meters high from the surface of the water, to cut off the steel products with 1,00 comes from each intersection of approximately 8 and 9 meters high from the surface of the water, and linked the above fruit to the ground line.
D The 45.6m between the angle and the intersection, and the balon line width was 8m.
C. On May 6, 2017, the Plaintiff’s husband E took a FY 210 motor boat (hereinafter “instant boats”) owned by the Plaintiff, the width of which is at least 2.5m a.m. on May 6, 2017, and gone through the parallel No. 4 and No. 5 p.m. with the front side of the Bapo-gu river located at the front side of the Bapo-gu river, and the Plaintiff’s husband E went through the parallel No. 8 and No. 9 p.m. on the way that the Defendant Company returned to the parallel at the point of 50-60m in the last 50-60m., and was installed by the Defendant Company, and was damaged by the instant boats.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.
The Plaintiff’s husband E suffered injury from the instant accident, and filed a petition against the Defendant Company’s person responsible for occupational injury, and the Defendant Company Jeon Un G neglected to perform the instant work should either keep a tag at a sufficient distance to be avoided by the vessel, or put a safety marking capable of distinguishing the steel system from the steel system, so that the operator of the vessel, who operates the instant work, is aware that the steel system is set up in the air across the public. The Defendant Company Jeon Undong, who is the supervisor of the work, should instruct and supervise the workers to thoroughly indicate the above safety marking. However, he neglected such duty.