2...

A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the employee of Defendant C. (2) around 17:00 on January 6, 2013, Defendant D, who is the employee of Defendant E, was in charge of the work of linking the tank of the tank including foul waste with the strawer and the strawer in loading a cargo truck, and then linking the tank with the strawer and the strawer in the above strawer and then spraying foul waste into the strawer.

3) Defendant D, among the above tasks, was engaged in the exchange of Belgiums connecting the transferee and the mother in the above tasks with the Plaintiff A. Defendant D, without knowing the fact that Plaintiff A’s left hand was in the Belgium, went on the engine operation without knowing it. Accordingly, Plaintiff A’s left hand was promptly carried on the Belgium (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(3) The Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as the cutting of the original sub-chapter 5 on the left-hand side, the transformation of the left-hand side 4 injury, the failure of three parts on the left-hand side, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition of liability, Defendant D is a tort, and Defendant E is an employer of Defendant D, who is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

C. According to the evidence prior to the limitation of liability, the original Belgium is Defendant E’s work, and the Plaintiff A should have requested Belgium to the Defendant E when it had no experience in replacing Belgium, but should have exchanged Belgium in one’s own discretion, and Defendant D should have paid attention to prevent Defendant D from putting his hand on the engine operation at will while putting his hand in the Belgium in the process of exchanging Belgium.