1. As to KRW 120,769,654 and KRW 63,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A for KRW 120,769,654 from July 3, 2016 to KRW 5,10,00.

1. Occurrence of liability;

A. The Plaintiff (1) was employed by the Defendant from April 10, 2013, and was engaged in cleaning, disinfection, and prevention of epidemics, shacking eggs, disposal of wasteed eggs, fodder cycles, eggs screening, and scambling assistance at the F farm operated by the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff (a) around 10:00 on February 11, 2016, 201, when the Plaintiff was placed in a dog where automatic transport machinery was loaded or broken down, and the Plaintiff (a) was placed in a machine where the Plaintiff’s bridge was placed in the machinery while maintaining the machinery chain, while the Plaintiff’s bridge was placed in the machinery, and was incurred by the Plaintiff’s scambling pressure and scambling, right-hand cutting, scambling, scambling and scambling, scambling, etc. on the wind of the Plaintiff’s bridge entering the machinery.

(3) Plaintiff A was hospitalized in G Hospital from the date of the instant accident to July 2, 2016. (4) Plaintiff B, C, and D are children of Plaintiff A.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) According to the fact that the above recognition of the liability for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the defendant is obligated to make accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act as an employer of the plaintiff A. 2) The plaintiff who is liable for the violation of the duty of protection under the Labor Standards Act is also liable for damages arising out of the violation of the duty of protection under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the plaintiff is also liable for damages arising out of the violation of the duty of protection under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, as an incidental duty to the principle of good faith attached to the labor contract, the employer bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that the employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health, and is liable for compensation in the event that the employee suffers damages by violating the duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001).