1. The Defendant Jinjin Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 18, 2012 to September 3, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) taken a complaint from Defendant Sungdong Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sungdong Shipbuilding”) to “work to remove a foreign substance on the surface of a ship before the vessel’s painting” at the place of business (hereinafter “Defendant Sungdong Ships”); and (b) took a part in the work to remove a foreign substance on the surface of the ship before the vessel’s painting; and (c) took part in the suppression of the left side by the left hand between the vessel and the vehicle subject to the work and the vehicle; and

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant Sung-dong Co., Ltd. ordered work quantity such as ship painting to Defendant Jinjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Jinjin”), had Defendant Sung-dong Co., Ltd. work in the workplace of Defendant Sung-dong Co., Ltd. due to the characteristics of the relevant work on the ship, and Defendant Jin agreed that the construction cost shall be calculated on a piece of the working price, while giving a subcontract to B.

The plaintiff is employed by the work team of B, and the defendant Jin-jin and the basic salary class of KRW 2,366,040 were also employed to prepare a labor contract.

C. After the instant accident, the Plaintiff received a test and a preservation test on the left-hand hand, but continued to undergo a test on the emulation, emulation, and so on, on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a multiple emulation and emulation, and was found to have lost the labor ability of 20% (A.M.A. standard) at the present.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), Eul's testimony, Eul's testimony, the court's entrustment of appraisal to the director of Busan University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants, on October 2012, asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since they agreed to the Plaintiff to not impose any civil or criminal liability on the Defendants instead of cooperating to enable the Plaintiff to apply for industrial accident, the Defendants’ assertion that the instant lawsuit is unlawful. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the testimony of the evidence No. 2 and witness D alone was the point of time when the Plaintiff’s assertion was agreed.