beta
Text
The Defendants jointly share KRW 130,046,638 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 8,00,000 to Plaintiff B, respectively, and KRW 2,00,00,000 to Plaintiff C and D.
Reasons
On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff A was employed by the Defendant Limited Liability Company Songwon (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) and was engaged in the first work using a towing machine at the G farm located in the Hasan City F on September 18, 2014.
However, the work salaries of the pre-use equipment used by Defendant E, who is a volunteer fee belonging to Defendant E, brought an injury to Plaintiff A, who was on the top of each of the end-of-ages of Plaintiff A, on the right hand, to protruding.
(A) No. 6, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff A.
(A) In full view of the establishment of liability and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 11, the worker who uses the prestigious machine was obligated to walk at the time of the accident without fixing the work salaries of the prestigative machine at the time of the accident, although the worker who uses the prestigative machine was obliged to walk at the time of the accident by putting the hand-off to prevent the learning of the work salaries at the time of the operation of the prestigative machine, it is recognized that the accident occurred without fixing the work salaries at the time of the accident at the time of the accident.
Therefore, Defendant E is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by a tort, and Defendant E is liable to compensate the Plaintiff based on the employer’s liability for damages, since Defendant E’s employee, as an employer, inflicted damages on the Plaintiff regarding the performance of its duties.
Defendant E asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the defect of the beginning of the towing, and thus, Defendant E does not have any negligence.
However, there is no circumstance that the pre-use of the pre-use of the pre-use of the pre-use of the pre-use of the pre-use by Defendant E, and that there was no misperception in the past (No. 11 No. 5) (No. 11).
In addition, the starting period used at the time was written.