1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing, leasing, wholesale and retail business of metal cutting and processing machinery, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the official duties (production of machine presses) at the Defendant Company from the first patrolman on October 2016.

나. 원고는 2016. 12. 29. 08:00경 피고의 사업장에서 전선닥트(자동차 엔진세척기계의 외부에 전선을 삽입시키는 부품)를 제작하는 컷팅 작업을 하던 중 그라인더가 튕겨서 그라인더의 쇠로 된 원형 날이 원고의 좌측 수부를 충격하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)를 당하였다.

C. The Plaintiff suffered injury by the instant accident, such as the pressure trags and incomplete cutting on the left-hand side of the water ledger, and balnegs and mathals and bloods on the left-hand side, flags, flags and flags on the left-hand side, etc.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant, as an employer who employs the Plaintiff, should have placed a person in charge of safety management at the work site to provide the Plaintiff with safety education prior to the work site. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with safety education prior to the work site, did not place a person in charge of safety management at the work site, and the safety covered dog (hereinafter “safety covered dog”).

(2) The defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case inasmuch as the plaintiff suffered bodily injury due to negligence of neglecting the plaintiff to use his/her dog without any attachment. 2) If the plaintiff used his/her dog in a normal manner, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence of the plaintiff's use. The accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's severe negligence, and the defendant provided the plaintiff with education on the method of work and safety of his/her dog, and the safety of his/her dog at the time of the accident of this case.