logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.08.25 2013가단50287
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against Dongyang, Inc., the debtor of rehabilitation, KRW 395,915,051, and the rehabilitation claim on May 21, 2012

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, on May 15, 2012, was employed by Defendant Nachix Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nachix”) and worked as an agent at the construction site designated by the said Defendant Company.

On December 22, 201, the Debtor Rehabilitation obligor, Dongyang, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongyang”) concluded a contract for the instant construction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). On December 22, 201, the contract for the construction of the “C” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction project”) among the construction works for the extension of the exhaust gas clean equipment in the Hyundai Steel Factory located in Defendant Nai-do and Dajin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Gojin

On May 21, 2012, at around 09:00, the Plaintiff: (a) felled with the opening floor below approximately 1.7 meters and felled into the floor of the opening of the opening, and suffered injury, such as blood transfusions, climatic brain damage, and the right-side dubing, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10 (including each number), Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 9-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer who has accrued liability for damages bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable for compensating for damages to an employee by violating such duty.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant Blux and Dongyang (hereinafter “Defendants”) are employees engaged in work.

arrow