1. The Defendant’s KRW 66,431,634 as well as 5% per annum from April 23, 2014 to December 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, who is the owner of the land C (hereinafter “instant land”), was planned to perform the filling work and the construction work of filling water in the instant land, due to the low floor of the instant land, and planned to do so, the Defendant contracted out the filling work to Nonparty D, who is engaged in the excavation business, and D performed the filling work for four days from March 25, 2014 to March 28, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant filled-up work”).

B. After the filling work of this case, the Defendant purchased fumes laid underground on the land of this case to the Plaintiff and D, and requested the Plaintiff and D to allow fume to conduct fume selling work when prepared to reduce fume fees, soil values, and daily allowances.

C. On April 23, 2014, when the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of sending a fume fume fume futile (hereinafter “instant construction”) and sending a signal to D’s fume fume, the Plaintiff’s left hand was involved in an accident where the Plaintiff’s left hand hand fume fume was involved. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury by the Plaintiff, such as 2, 3, 4, 5 balance pressure damage, 2, 3 balance pressure damage on the left hand, 2, and 3 incomplete cutting on the left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

From April 23, 2014 to April 25, 2014, the Defendant sent two daily workers E employed by himself/herself to the above construction site, and completed the instant construction works laid underground.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including a branch number if there is a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, the result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the high school hospital of this court, the witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Defendant whether the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s user is a single Corporation. The Defendant ordered all of the above Corporation to D, and the Plaintiff is employed by D. As such, the Plaintiff’s employer is not the Defendant. Thus, the above evidence and evidence are asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s user is not D.