logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.07.12 2017가단32004
손해배상(산)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,417,271 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 7, 2016 to July 12, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served in the Defendant Company from around 2003 to 2011, and re-entered on October 20, 2014, and served in the Defendant Company until March 31, 2017.

B. On March 7, 2016, at around 16:30 on March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff suffered pictures while Maineasium in the Doroium was engaged in the channel cleaning in a Maineasium Doroasium.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The plaintiff suffered a image of 2.4% of the surface of the inner side, the border, both sides, and the right upper part of the accident of this case, and the construction of the right upper part of the road.

[Ground of Recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the result of the commission of each physical examination to the Mayor of the Daegu Tol University Hospital, and the Head of the Gyeongbuk University Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. An employer of liability for damages is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment or labor contract, and bears a duty to maintain a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, etc., and is liable for damages caused by nonperformance of such duty if an employee suffers damage.

In addition, in a case where such an act of violating the duty of protection or the duty of safety consideration falls under the requirements of tort, liability for damages arising from a tort is also liable for tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da60247, Nov. 28, 2013). However, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising therefrom, since the instant accident occurred because it did not have adequate protective equipment to prevent pictures while neglecting the duty of protection against the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall provide safety education, keep safety protective outfits, etc.

arrow