A. The Plaintiff (1) is a person employed from February 1, 2017 to provide the Defendant with labor.

(2) On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the left hand part of the Defendant’s plant, the first part of the 4th left part of the lower part of the Defendant plant, the first part of the 3rd part of the 3rd part of the left part, the open part of the 4th part of the branch, the second part of the 4th part of the upper part of the 3rd part of the left part, the second part of the 4th part of the 4th part of the branch, the second part of the 4th part of the upper part of the 4th part of the upper part of the Defendant, the high part of d

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (3) On the other hand, Plaintiff B is the father and wife of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 4-1 through 3, Gap 5, Gap 3 and 4-4, witness Eul's testimony and purport of whole pleadings]

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer liable to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, as an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the employment contract, and as a result, an employee is liable to compensate for damages

(2) The defendant, who is an employer of the plaintiff A, has been negligent in taking safety measures, such as having the plaintiff work in a cover with the safety protection prevent of an accident, in the event that the defendant, who is an employer of the plaintiff A, is engaged in a business dangerous to an accident, although he/she should have been negligent in taking safety measures, and it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as an illegal act.

(c) On the other hand, while limiting liability, the Plaintiff’s Party A did not pay due attention to each other in carrying out dangerous work such as fating, and the Plaintiff’s losses are removed from the license immediately upon the need of locking.