beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 31, 2017 to February 13, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant is a company running a construction business or civil engineering business, and the plaintiff is a DNA male.
B. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a daily employee at the construction site of the new construction site located in Ischeon-si, E, and was engaged in the work to fix the beam (e.g., a horizontal structure that is connected to the pole of a vertical material). Without any separate work plate or safety device, the Plaintiff felled at a height of 1.5 meters at the wind where the pipe falls down, and thereby suffered injury, such as the right-hand frame, etc.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 3, and 7 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the above facts finding the ground for liability, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by negligence by the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty of safety consideration to employees, such as not issuing a work order or providing safety devices, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the instant accident. In response, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant fulfilled his duty of safety consideration, but there is no other counter-proof to reverse the above recognition. Meanwhile, according to the above finding facts, the limitation of liability should have been on the part of the Plaintiff, even if it was negligent in failing to perform its duty of safety by requesting the Plaintiff to install work orders or safety devices, etc., and thus, the Defendant’
B. We examine the scope of liability for damages, the above recognition, and the following circumstances revealed by the result of the physical examination commission to F Hospital in this Court. In other words, the Plaintiff’s consolation money is minor, considering the Plaintiff’s age, background of the accident, degree of negligence of the Plaintiff, and other various circumstances revealed in the argument in this case.