1. As to the Plaintiff A, the Defendant: (a) KRW 85,241,097; (b) KRW 2,500,000; and (c) each said money, from May 28, 2013 to May 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company that runs the business of manufacturing, manufacturing, and selling, etc. in Sinpo-si 166, Sinpo-si. The Plaintiff is an employee employed by the Defendant from April 18, 201 to February 28, 2014, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A.

B. On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff A was injured by the steel plate slope (hereinafter “instant slope”) while moving the ice bend, which was made steel plates at Defendant factory, to the counter-storage water (hereinafter “instant village”) and suffered injury, such as the 12 chest-ladle lacing lacing of the 12 chests, while getting the qui of the instant village (hereinafter “instant slope”).

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

Plaintiff

A received benefits of KRW 32,212,720 in total, including temporary layoff benefits of KRW 8,436,960, medical care benefits of KRW 10,261,50, disability benefits of KRW 18,514,260, and disability benefits of KRW 18,514,260, until May 20, 2016, after having received a decision on occupational accidents from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) An employer of relevant legal principles is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health, while providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such protection duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001; 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001); and the aforementioned facts of recognition and evidence No. 1-1, 2, and E evidence No. 1-1, 3, and 1-2, and each testimony of witnesses C, and D, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, as an employer, neglected to prevent accidents by thoroughly supervising the management of the floor of the workplace and the management and supervision of employees, such as the Plaintiff.