1. The Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) paid KRW 47,177,726 to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from June 2, 2011 to January 22, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company established on June 25, 2002 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling Han land, and the defendant is a person who joined the plaintiff company as a production worker on November 22, 2002.

B. On June 2, 2011, at around 12:30, the Defendant was engaged in washing a grassland (a serial machine) with the Plaintiff Company B, etc. located in the Plaintiff Company located in the 378 G, Young-si, Young-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

At that time, the entertainment work was being carried out in the vicinity of the washing workplace (A. 2m. distance), but the contact work was interrupted at the defendant's request to reduce the risk of fire, and the contact work was interrupted within the range.

In the course of cleaning, the Defendant also continued to conduct cleaning and painting work at the same time, and there was an accident in which the painting that occurred in the contact work was protruding to the washing workplace.

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

Due to the instant accident, the Defendant suffered serious 40% of the total telegraph, 2 degrees and 3 degrees pictures, and was judged as having been disabled by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 2 and 3, each of the statements and images of Eul evidence 2 and 3, C, D, E's testimony, witness F's testimony, part of witness F's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the plaintiff neglected his duty to maintain a working environment to prevent the defendant's employee from causing harm to life and body while on duty and to protect the employee from occupational accidents, and thus the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for the damage suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case.

B. The limitation of liability was carried out by the Defendant with strong volatiles at the time, and the Defendant was engaged in washing with the view to the fact that there is a risk of fire in the course of melting work at the location of the washing workplace.