A. At around 10:30 on November 2, 2012, Defendant B: (a) carried out the operation of scam trees, which were cut by driving the scambling machine in the Chungcheong-gun D Forest (hereinafter “instant forest”); (b) carried out the operation of the scambling machine to a nearby dry field by putting it up on the wire line connected to the scambling-cacker; and (c) carried out the operation of the scambling machine excessively at the wind of excessive operation of the operation of the scambling machine to the right side; (d) the Plaintiff’s right horse, which was flading the end of the scambling tree at the same time, was cut between the above scam and the trees planted at the site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered injury to the right-hand edge of the instant accident, i.e., e., the upper pelle, the right-hand flachisa, the right-hand flachisa, the right-hand flachisa, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 15, 20, 21 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above basic facts on Defendant B’s responsibility, Defendant B was responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by his violation of his duty of care, even though the Plaintiff’s location was checked so as to cover a sufficient distance from the operating margin of the scambling machine, or he was obliged to drive the scambling machine by strongly fixing the scambeet in a safe way so as not to drive the scambling tree.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is liable for damages arising from the instant accident as the employer of Defendant B, since the instant accident occurred while Defendant C employed Defendant C and performed his own house construction work. 2) The employer’s liability for judgment is the employee of the other person, who had caused the other person to engage in a certain work.