1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,851,318; (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff A; and (c) KRW 1,00,000 to each of the said money, from January 3, 2013 to January 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A. From July 1, 2010, Plaintiff A, who had been employed as an employee of the Defendant Company from July 1, 2010, was injured by “the credit rating of the Hevertebrate, the boom, etc. of the Heebrate,” resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury to “the credit rating of the Heebrate, the boom, etc. of the Heebrate,” which had been able to support the roof of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

2) 2) The Plaintiff’s workplace E, the employee of the Plaintiff Company, told the Plaintiff to the effect that “the governance is listed in the tent set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article and does not perform snow removal work.” 3) The Defendant Company is keeping an anti-slock prevention signal in the Company, and the employees are obliged to wear the above slock and work.

4) On June 16, 2013, Plaintiff A retired from the Defendant Company. 5) Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7 evidence (including paper numbers), Eul 7, 10, 14, 15 evidence (including paper numbers), Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer of the basis of liability bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). In cases where an employee suffers damage due to his/her breach of such duty to protect employees, the employer of the Plaintiff Company A, as an employer, neglected to maintain and manage the safety of facilities to prevent accidents in the course of performing the above work, and to educate the Plaintiff of the working methods for preventing accidents even if he/she had an occupational duty to educate the Plaintiff in detail. Thus, the Defendant Company