1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 98,928,794 with respect to the Plaintiff, and the period from October 28, 2015 to October 25, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was an accident that cut off 2,3,4,5 fingers from the presses, excluding the left hand hand, while working at the E business establishment located in the Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Defendant B was registered as the wife of Defendant C as the business owner of the above E, and Defendant C is the actual manager of the above company.

B. Defendant C was indicted on suspicion of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to the effect that “When working using the presses installed as protective devices, he/she must maintain the performance of the relevant protective devices, and when it is apprehended that protective devices will not be used by using the source location, he/she should take necessary measures, such as removing the source location, but the Plaintiff continued to engage in an accident that cut off 2,3,4,5 fingers due to the Plaintiff’s failure to remove the source location.” On March 13, 2017, he/she received a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 by the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Da1239, the said summary order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 6 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of evidence prior to the recognition of liability, partial descriptions of Gap evidence No. 12, and significant facts in this court, i.e., ① According to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the rules on occupational safety and health standards under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a business owner must take necessary measures, such as installing a safety device to ensure that the physical part of workers working using presses do not fall under the risk limit, and has the legal obligation to maintain the performance of the pertinent protective devices; ② Even if so, Defendant C is for business efficiency.