A. At around 10:00 on June 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) operated a refratulation machine in front of D’s house located in Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-do; and (b) carried out stone storage work.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff was in a situation in order to help the Defendant work, and the Defendant was well aware of the surrounding areas, and there was a duty of care to check whether there was a person within the radius of the scambling season and prevent the accident.

C. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not discover the Plaintiff who was on the tin axis by negligence without having well live around and without having done the work as it was and received the Plaintiff’s chest part on the left side of the clocket, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as a cryp fry crym, frym frym, and frym frys.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence 1, 6, 7 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant’s liability is not limited.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident suffered loss from the lost income (applicable urban wage) equivalent to KRW 12,093,786,000 in the instant case. However, the Plaintiff was FF students at the age of 77 as of June 8, 2015, which was the date of the instant accident, and the maximum working age has already been exceeded the maximum working age. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered loss from the lost income due to the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove that the actual import loss occurred to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The records of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 11 are as follows.