Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

The deceased C (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) is a driver of the soft season, who is employed by the Defendant company in the business of collecting off rocks around September 1, 2014. Around that time, he/she has been engaged in crushinging the blasting stones with the size of the machine to the extent that they will enter the machine.

On February 28, 2018, the Deceased worked at D Defendant’s workplace at Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and started light work at around 07:00. On around 08:00, the Deceased was discovered at the site warden in the state of being sucked back by the string of the body while he was seated at the driver’s workplace, and was sent to the Busan National University Hospital, Busan National University Hospital upon receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and had already died (hereinafter “instant accident”). A doctor who examined the Deceased entered the cause of death in the death of the deceased in the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the deceased as “(Presumption) in the form of acute heart funeral(s)”, and the type of death did not run the body of the deceased.

The Plaintiff, the only inheritance of the deceased’s spouse’s interest, was paid insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff, the defendant had the deceased work for an average of 60 hours per week prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, average of 57 hours per week, average of 57 hours per week prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, and work for 80 hours per day prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, thereby causing the deceased to be accumulated in the state of crime caused by excess.

Although the Deceased was under the working environment exposed to harmful persons, such as vibration and noise, the Defendant did not perform the duty of the business owner as prescribed by the industrial safety and health statutes, such as providing protective outfits or measuring the noise level of working environment so that the Deceased may work safely.

The deceased is in violation of the above duty of care or safety consideration.