A. C is an employee who entered the Defendant Company on March 13, 2013.

B. On June 25, 2013, at the Defendant Company’s place of business, C replaced a press room (a approximately 5 tons) with a tent (15 tons) at the Defendant Company’s place of business. However, around 06:22, a clamf, which was removed from 30,000 out of 4 clampin connecting a tent and presses, was divided into a clamf’s remote control device (hereinafter “clamf”).

C. For this reason, there was an accident in which the presses cirst automatically operated and moved to C, and the presses cirst which were cirsted to C without separation of the tails, shocked C’s head and face face.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

C A deceased due to the above accident by causing cerebral transfusion.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). E.

As the co-inheritors of the deceased, the Plaintiff and the mother are father and Nonparty D.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of any danger caused by machines, tools and other equipment in operating his/her business, and shall take measures necessary for the prevention of any danger caused by any defective work method, etc. in operating, transporting, dismantling, handling heavy objects and other work;

(Article 23(1)2 and 23(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. According to the above evidence, E’s representative director of the Defendant Company did not conduct a prior investigation of the instant gold-type replacement work, topography in the workplace, ground and geographical layers, etc., or prepare a work plan including safety measures to prevent risks, such as fall, fall, falling, electric power failure, and narrow collapse, taking into account the results of such investigation.