beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 29,640,275 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 25, 2014 to November 29, 2018; and (b) for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was employed by the Defendant as a daily worker at the site of the construction of the Cresh Living Facilities in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and was in excess of the cut season while performing timber cutting operations; (b) was in the event that the right bridge was flaged on the saw Day (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s impairment of the right-hand pelke, the pelke beer, the pelke beer beer, and the damage to the gale beeral beer.
3) As to the instant accident from October 25, 2014 to September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received temporary layoff benefits of KRW 20,276,480 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter “Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service”) and received KRW 44,968,00 in the amount of disability benefits (Lump-sum payment). [In the absence of any grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff received KRW 44,968,00 in the amount of KRW 44,968,00.]
B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment or labor contract, an employer shall be obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and shall be liable to compensate the employee for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty.
According to the above evidence and witness D, and E’s testimony at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident where the right bridge was severely flabed on the saws day while cutting the cut wing with the cut wing machines located on the non- packing surface, and the Plaintiff et al. performed cut work at the site of the accident, which is the parking lot site E, according to the direction of the head of the wood team team at the Defendant’s site. The instant accident site was a place where the Plaintiff et al. performed cutting work at the site of the accident, which is the parking lot. The instant accident site was a place where the Plaintiff et al. al. al. did not cut off and cut the flab and cut the flab on the non- packing surface, even though it was a place where the Plaintiff had to do so.