beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from July 30, 2015 to June 1, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s employee, worked as the main production worker at the Defendant’s business located in the 48-dong-dong-dong, Young-si Industrial Complex.
B. At around 10:00 on July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and B performed the collection work of salt acid, etc. used for the production of tin in the above place of business without wearing protective equipment for the protection of the inside of the inside of the said place of business. During that process, there was an accident in which salt acid, etc. is sclded with the parts connected to the pipelines, and the Plaintiff’s face, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The Plaintiff suffered injury in each of the instant accidents, such as each of the instant incidents, saved saved saves, saved saves, saved saves, and saved saves, etc., of 13% in the case of the instant accident, and 98% in the case of
The Plaintiff received, respectively, KRW 1,68,50 of temporary layoff benefits for the period of medical care from July 29, 2015 to May 19, 2016, and KRW 538,810 of medical care benefits, and disability benefit 39,329,29,290 of disability benefits, respectively.
[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged based on the above basic facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-6, Eul evidence 5-7, and Eul evidence 1’s overall purport of pleading, i.e., ① the defendant did not prepare safety equipment such as the protection draft for the plaintiff and Eul before the accident in this case before the accident in this case and could have been engaged in the work without the plaintiff’s wear of safety equipment at the time of the accident in this case (the defendant appears to have newly prepared safety equipment which can be verified by the images of Eul evidence 4-1 through 6 in this case after the accident in this case). ② The defendant did not provide safety education on the work in this case to the plaintiff and Eul before the accident in this case occurred.