1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3.5 million and each year from January 19, 2016 to September 12, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a worker employed by Defendant B’s nationality, who was dispatched to and work at the workplace of Defendant C (hereinafter “C”), and was inflicted damage on the left part of the machinery on January 19, 2016 on the ground that the left part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part of the left part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff received 10,866,640 won of temporary layoff benefits and 4,643,630 won of medical care benefits for the period of medical care from January 20, 2016 to January 31, 2017 from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: A without any dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the whole, Defendant C: by the conclusion of confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. It shall be rejected that the arguments of the judgment party are not separately explained.

A limited employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment or labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and the employer is liable to compensate for damages caused by his/her violation of such a duty.

(2) In light of the above facts, the Defendants, such as the Plaintiff’s employer, etc., are obligated to take account of the safety of workers under a labor contract, etc., such as providing safety equipment or ordering the Plaintiff to pay attention to safety so that the Plaintiff does not have any physical condition during his/her work. However, the Defendants neglected such duty, etc.

The instant accident occurred due to the Defendants’ breach of the duty of safety consideration or the duty of protection. Accordingly, the Defendants are accordingly.