1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,679,416 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 23, 2015 to April 26, 2017, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact, while the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, was working for plastic withdrawal in the Defendant’s workplace on January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered injury from the 1st heading down of the right, cutting down the 1st heading, cutting down the upper part of the 2,3,4 balance of the right, cutting the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, cutting the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the lower part of the lower part of the materials, and damaging the right-hand tension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”. The exhauster is a machine which makes the body by inserting, cooling, and heating melting melt plastic materials into the cryp closed in the cryp that is above 200 cm with high heat, and then inserting melting them into the cryp which is closed through enjoying them. In the event that the worker at the time of the instant accident puts his hand into the cryp inside the cryp, the safety device to stop its operation was not operated, and whether the safety device was installed.

The Defendant did not confirm the installation and operation of safety devices as above, and did not provide the Plaintiff with particular safety education regarding the method of spreading dual agents during withdrawn work.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As the Plaintiff’s employer, the Defendant, as an incidental duty under the good faith principle attached to the labor contract, failed to verify whether the safety devices for shooting machines are properly installed and operated, or in the event of malfunction, took measures to ensure the safe work of workers by installing and repairing them. In light of the risk of work performed by the workers, the Defendant, as an employer, should conduct safety education on how to spread the dual-type system during the shooting season. However, the instant accident occurred by failing to perform such safety care duty.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.