1. The Defendant’s KRW 186,797,074 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 30, 2014 to December 10, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for follow-up treatment (the reduction of the surface of products produced by the Defendant) with D that orders D to engage in marketing, etc. of products produced by the Defendant.

From August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and seven workers, including D, worked in the Defendant’s workplace as a massage.

B. Around 08:00 on August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff caused an accident involving a string (2.5 km) during the process of drinking water.

The plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the cutting of a complex balone balone balone, the cutting of a balone balone, the cutting of a balone, the cutting of a balone balone, the cutting of a balone, and the bal

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Article 758(1) of the Civil Act of the relevant legal doctrine provides, “When any damage is inflicted on another person due to a defect in the construction or preservation of a structure, the possessor of the structure is liable for the damage. However, if the possessor fails to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damage, he/she shall be liable for the damage.”

The legislative intent of the above provision is that the manager of a structure must pay attention necessary for the prevention of danger, and it is fair to impose liability on the manager of the structure in the event of damages caused by reality of risk.

Therefore, the term “defect in the installation and preservation of a structure” refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether a person who installs and preserves the structure has taken measures to prevent risks to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Da68348 Decided July 12, 2018