1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,295,929 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 12, 2012 to September 22, 2016.

1. The facts subsequent to the underlying facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings (including facts having no dispute).

On August 31, 2012, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff as the head of the “C Field Working Group” Working Group under Defendant B from September 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012.

At around 07:40 on September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was in the vicinity of the other team working group D, a worker of the Defendant, who was engaged in the sprinking by using a mechanical saw at the above working site. However, during the process of the sprinking the sprinkling of D, the Plaintiff was in excess of the direction of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suffered injury by shocking at the beginning of the removal item.

(2) The establishment of liability and limitation

A. According to the evidence established prior to the establishment of liability, D, an employee of the Defendant, was anticipated that the direction that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the Plaintiff within the Working Group during the work site at around 07:40 on September 12, 2012, while conducting the work at the above work site, would not be the direction of the Plaintiff, and the removal trees would go beyond the direction of the Plaintiff, and the occurrence of the instant accident is recognized.

Therefore, D bears tort liability, and D bears employer's liability.

The defendant asserts that even if he had paid considerable attention to D's supervision of affairs, he could not prevent the accident of this case, so he did not bear an employer's liability.

A person who has had an employee engage in a certain work using another person shall be liable for the damages inflicted upon the employee to a third party regarding the performance of his/her work, but the employer shall not be so if the employee has paid due attention to the appointment of the employee and his/her supervision of the work, or if there is a considerable

(Article 756(1) of the Civil Act). Circumstances that the employer has paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of such employee or cause damage to such employee upon due care shall be asserted and proved by the employer.