1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 23,380,345 to the Plaintiff; (b) KRW 700,000 to the Plaintiff; (c) KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff; and (d) each of them on December 2, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2008, Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) joined the Defendant Company and retired from the Defendant Company on November 1, 2017.

B. At around 21:00 on July 15, 201, the Plaintiff suffered an injury by extreme marction on the left-hand side by pushing the above machinery with three employees to move the location of the machinery at the Defendant Company’s workplace.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

After the instant accident occurred, the Defendant Company paid KRW 26,60,000 as medical expenses up to the time of retirement from the time of his retirement to the time of his retirement.

Plaintiff

B is the Plaintiff’s wife, and Plaintiff C is the Plaintiff’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer of the basis of liability bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such duty of protection.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Da12082 delivered on February 23, 199, 99Da47129 delivered on May 16, 200, etc.). According to the above facts, the defendant, who entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff, is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the employment contract, and the defendant, who is an employer, takes necessary measures to ensure that the plaintiff moves or transports heavy machinery, he/she shall not harm his/her body in the course of work with the equipment adequate thereto. However, he/she is liable for nonperformance due to the plaintiff's failure to perform his/her duty to protect himself/herself as such.

(b) limitation of liability, however, that it is necessary to promote the safety of the plaintiff himself/herself so as not to have any damage to his/her body while moving heavy machinery.