A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A is the Future Grox Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Future Grox”).

(3) The employee employed by the Defendant Hanam Electricity Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hanam Electricity”) is limited to “Defendant Hanam Electricity”).

A) Dispatched and served in the factory of Defendant Hanam Electric, and Defendant Hanam Electric again is the Plaintiff Hanam Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Taenam Industries”).

(2) On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff A was dispatched to Defendant Thai-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, for the removal of the sculpture with the hands of the consortium and presses, while the equipment for booming was maintained at the factory of Defendant Thai-dong, Sung-gu, Sung-si, Sung-si, Sung-si, and the equipment for booming between the materials and the consortium was cut.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) Plaintiff B, C, and D are punished by Plaintiff A. [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 5 through 8, 13 through 17, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (each of the entries, images, and arguments included in each number)

B. In full view of the nature and contents of the relationship of work, direction and order in the temporary placement of workers, it is reasonable to view that a user company, who has employed a temporary work agency, is also obliged to directly provide the user company with the duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker in relation to the temporary placement service. On the premise that the temporary work agency enters into a temporary placement contract with the user company, and the temporary agency worker also provides the user company with the above duty of protection or safety consideration on the premise that the user company bears the duty of protection or safety consideration.

Therefore, in the case of temporary agency workers, the user company and temporary agency workers are not subject to special circumstances.