2016 Gohap 535017 Damages

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

1. Stock companies D;

2. E:

3. Stock company F.

4. G.

5. H;

January 12, 2021

February 4, 2021

1. Defendant D and E jointly

(a) 5% per annum from January 16, 2016 to February 4, 2021 and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment to Plaintiff A;

B. The Plaintiff B shall pay 979,821,893 won with 5% interest per annum from January 22, 2016 to February 4, 2021, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant F, G, and H jointly pay to Plaintiff C 919,446,560 won with 5% interest per annum from February 17, 2016 to February 4, 2021, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

4. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant D and Defendant E jointly pay to Plaintiff A 1,183,764,90 won and its 5% interest per annum from January 16, 2016 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the instant complaint; and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 5% interest per annum from January 22, 2016 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the instant complaint; 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. Defendant F, G and H jointly pay to Plaintiff C 1,09,694,822 won and its interest per annum from February 17, 2016 to the day of complete payment; and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) An employment relationship and disaster of the plaintiff A;

1) Conclusion of an employment contract between Plaintiff A and Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”) and Plaintiff A’s I secondment

A) Defendant E is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts, mobile communications machinery parts, etc. under the trade name of “company at the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City J (hereinafter referred to as “I”). Defendant D, who is engaged in the business of dispatching workers, entered into a contract for dispatching workers with Defendant E on May 1, 2015.

B) On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff A entered into an employment contract with Defendant D and was dispatched to the I workplace on the same day.

2) The working environment of Plaintiff A

A) In order to produce various mobile phone parts (hereinafter referred to as “portable telephone parts”), such as the tecry, home key, wave key (the part which turns down the source of power), and Bollium (the part which adjusts the height of hydrogen) into K mobile phones, I cut and processed alcium and supplied them to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”). CNC used CNC with equipment to cut alcium in order to manufacture the above mobile phone parts. CNC was a small machine that can cut and process precise machinery or metal materials in accordance with the pre-fluence value of the inner disorder, and CNC used 9% NC equipment to cleanly melt the ralculized part and to cleanly dispose of alcrying parts through 9% NC equipment.

B) Plaintiff A was mainly in charge of 'water control inspection’ to examine whether products produced through the above CNC equipment are manufactured in conformity with size and standards. During that process, Plaintiff A carried out the process of removing the remaining carbon of the products using 'Air Gun', which is an apparatus that emits compressed air. In addition, when human resources fall short, Plaintiff A carried out the work of directly operating CNC equipment to cut and cut aluminium or to injecting them into the Tong attached to the equipment using the manual.

3) The occurrence of the Plaintiff A’s accident

가) 원고 A은 2016. 1. 15. I 사업장에서 야간 근무 중 메스꺼움과 구토 증상을 느껴 지역 병원에 내원했으나 혈액검사 결과 이상이 없다는 소견을 듣고 다시 복귀하여 근무를 지속하였다. 이후 2016. 1. 16. 오전 9시경 앞이 뿌옇게 보이는 증상이 발생하였고, 잠이 들었다가 깬 후에도 앞이 잘 보이지 않아 M병원 응급실로 내원하였다. 원고 A은 중환자실에 입원하여 투석을 포함한 치료를 실시한 후 의식이 돌아왔으나, 동 공반사 상실 및 시력저하 증세를 보였고, M병원에서 양안 메탄올 관련 시신경병증, 대사성 뇌증, 독성 뇌병증, 대사산증 진단을 받았다(이하 '원고 A의 재해'라 한다).

B) On January 22, 2016, branch offices of the Industrial Safety and Health Authority conducted a working environment measurement with respect to an I place of business. At five points inside the workplace, it was confirmed that the 200 pm of 1,103 to 2,220 pm of 1,10 pm in excess of 11 times or more under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

C) The work relevance assessment written by the doctor N andO of the M Hospital on February 15, 2016 in relation to the Plaintiff’s disaster stated as follows: “Plaintiff’s toxic brain cerebral cerebralop and bilateral pathalopism are the same as the Plaintiff’s Mean poisoning reported prior medical opinions; the Plaintiff’s exposure during several months to the level exceeding 5 to 10 times the standard values; the exposure was continued without appropriate personal protective equipment; the exposure was continued to the skin and the respiratory during his/her work; there was no other cause causing the Plaintiff’s exposure to the Plaintiff’s disease.”

D) On March 25, 2016, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service recognized the Plaintiff’s occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) on March 25, 2016.

E) While Plaintiff A was close to the real name of both banks at the time of preparing the written assessment of the nature related to the above business, Plaintiff A was finally judged as disability grade 7 and 4 by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation after receiving medical treatment in relation to the above disaster.

B. Employment and disaster of the plaintiff B

1) Conclusion of an employment contract between Plaintiff B and Defendant D, and Plaintiff B’s I dispatch

Plaintiff B entered into an employment contract with Defendant D on September 2, 2015, and was dispatched to the I workplace on the same day.

2) The working environment of Plaintiff B

The plaintiff B operated the CNC equipment in I’s workplace to cut and process Aluminium, to remove the remaining merium in products produced by using air stuffs, and to inject the merium into the Tong attached to the equipment using the manual pumps.

3) The occurrence of Plaintiff B’s accident

A) On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff B, while working at I’s place of business on January 20, 2016, she was suffering from the symptoms of the present donation, and she again frighted with the symptoms of the inside and outside of the mouth after the frighting from January 21, 2016, but she was diagnosed with the toxic effect of the mean, and the mean infection (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B’s disaster”).

B) The work relevance assessment written by the doctor N andO of M Hospital on February 15, 2016 in relation to the Plaintiff’s disaster indicated as follows: “The Plaintiff’s low vision symptoms and medical opinions are identical to the Plaintiff’s Mean addiction reported earlier; the Plaintiff’s exposure during several months in the number exceeding 5 to 10 times the standard value was exposed; and without appropriate personal protective equipment, the skin and Hobbbes were exposed during the work. The occurrence of the same patient at the same workplace; the occurrence of the same patient at the same workplace; and there is no other cause that may cause the Austhic damage is highly likely to be toxic diseases.”

C) On March 25, 2016, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service recognized Plaintiff B’s toxic effect, and the relevant meral infection (nives) as occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

D) At the time of the preparation of the assessment report on business relevance with respect to the above disaster, Plaintiff B was in a condition that it was impossible to see all both designs due to both sides due to chronologicalism. Plaintiff B received treatment and was judged as Grade 1 1 of the disability grade from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation after the completion of medical care.

C. Employment relationship and disaster of Plaintiff C

1) Conclusion of an employment contract between Plaintiff C and Defendant F (hereinafter “Defendant F”), and Plaintiff C’s Q dispatch

A) Defendant G and H are those engaged in the business of manufacturing mobile phone parts under the trade name of Q from the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City R. Defendant G and H. Defendant F, who is engaged in the business of dispatching workers, concluded a contract for dispatching workers with Q on January 21, 2016.

B) After entering into an employment contract with Defendant F, Plaintiff C was dispatched to Defendant G and Q place of business operated by Defendant H from February 11, 2016.

2) The Plaintiff’s working environment Plaintiff C operated the CNC facilities located in Q place of business and took charge of removing the remaining merium from the products that process Aluminium by cutting off Aluminium.

In addition, the plaintiff C had been engaged in the process of subdividing it into a drum with a large drum that is necessary for each facility, but such work was conducted in a room without windows.

3) The occurrence of the Plaintiff C’s accident

A) On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff C did not seem to have seen the eye before leaving work at night at Q place, but continued to work on February 17, 2016, and was laid down after he left from work. However, on February 17, 2016, Plaintiff C was in the emergency room of S Hospital because he did not appear earlier. At the time of internal origin, Plaintiff C was found to have a serious external symptoms accompanied by a high level of exhaustion in the dynamic gas test. At the time of internal origin, Plaintiff C was found to have a serious external symptoms that was accompanied by a high level of exhaustion in the dynamics gas test. At the time of internal origin, Plaintiff C was able to observe in the chromatic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic ty.

B) On April 25, 2016, the work relevance assessment prepared by the doctor N andO of the M Hospital in relation to the Plaintiff’s disaster stated as follows: “Plaintiff’s toxic brain disease, clinical and clinical symptoms, and medical opinions seem to be shown in mean poisoning addiction; when considering the work environment and work content, the mean continued to be exposed to the skin and pulmonary instruments; the fact that the mean poisoning patients, who show symptoms similar to the Plaintiff C, had already been confirmed that the mean poisoning patients had already been exposed to 3 persons; and that there is no other cause for the meancy reduction and meansis from the Plaintiff C at all, it is judged that there is a high possibility that the mean poisoning’s disease caused by mean poisoning poisoning in the workplace.”

C) On April 11, 2016, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service recognized Plaintiff C’s toxic brain disease, non-fluoral liverosis, mertan addiction, detailed cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral typhism, and detailed cerebral typhism, as occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

D) The Plaintiff C was in a state where the decline in both sides was continued at the time of preparing the written assessment of the nature related to the above business. After receiving medical treatment and completing medical treatment, the Plaintiff C was judged as Grade 1 00 of the disability grade by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

D. Characteristics of Mestan and Measures by Business Operators

1) Mexan is a harmful substance subject to control under Article 420 and attached Table 12 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health Standards, and is known as a substance that causes damage to the neutism, pulmonary machine stimulation, and negotition, through the foregoing Minister, pulmonology, skin, etc., and severe eromatic liquid and steam, thereby causing damage to the pulmonary system, negotition, and negotition.

2) The former Occupational Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the “former Business Safety and Health Act”) provides that a business owner shall take measures necessary to prevent health disorder caused by gases, liquid or sludge discharged from his/her workplace when conducting his/her business, and details of such measures are to be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor (Article 24(1)3 and (2)). The former Rules on the Standards for Occupational Safety and Health (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 251, Apr. 19, 201; hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) provides that the business owner shall provide the business owner with facilities to be kept in order to handle harmful substances subject to control at the indoor place of work so that workers may wear and take measures necessary for the prevention of harmful substances; (3) the business owner shall install equipment to be emitting gas or dust in the workplace; and (4) the workers shall notify the employees of the methods of handling and treatment of such harmful substances; (1) the workers’ name and equipment to be subject to be handled.

3) The substance safety and health data publicly announced by the Safety and Health Authority is clearly stated in the following: (a) when using mertans; (b) when using mertans and any composite substance containing at least 85 per cent of the breath in order to protect breaths, the full-scale type air conditioners shall be worn; (c) when using merium facilities and emergency shower facilities near the workplace to protect breaths; and (d) when using mertans and any composite substance containing at least 85 per cent of the breath in order to protect breaths, the breaths and emergency shower facilities shall be installed; and (d) when using mertans and any composite substance containing at least 85 per cent of the breaths, the breaths and breaths shall be worn in three or four forms of breaths for protecting chemicals.

E. Determination of a criminal judgment against T

Around May 1, 2015, Defendant D’s representative director T was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of one year of suspension of execution for six months of imprisonment for a crime that he/she was engaged in illegal workers by dispatching more than 10 employees, including Plaintiff A and B, to engage directly in CNC processing, etc., even though he/she should not engage in a dispatched business for direct production process of manufacturing business on June 23, 2016 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016Da1138), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

F. Determination of a criminal judgment against U

On February 9, 2017, U who actually operates I as the husband of Defendant E was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of two years and 80 hours for community service due to the following criminal facts (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2016Kadan2961), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Criminal facts (0) The defendant is a business owner who actually runs the business of manufacturing and processing mobile phone parts, etc. using full-time workers while operating I located in Seocheon-si J. The defendant in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is a business owner who actually runs the business of manufacturing and processing mobile phone parts, etc. using full-time workers. 1. From early 2014 to early 2016, the defendant violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act: (1) the above I place of business; (2) organic compound compounds using machinery; (3) ethyl alcohol, which are hazardous substances subject to control, for the purpose of preventing health problems of workers; (2) the above place of business without installing equipment capable of discharging the above steam out of the place of business; (3) the method of storing and treating ethyl alcohol; and (4) the method of handling ethyl alcohol, etc. without taking necessary measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and subordinate statutes delegated thereto; and (3) the method of handling ethyl alcohol, such as ethyl alcohol, etc. without installing any equipment capable of treating them in the place of storing ethyl alcohol.

Around May 1, 2015, the Defendant did not take measures to provide workers with imperptive protective clothes, protective clothes, protective equipment, and protective medicines for skin protection, but did not take measures to require workers engaged in the above CNC processing process with safety awareness to wear it. Accordingly, the Defendant did not take any necessary measures to prevent workers' health disorder. 2. The Defendant violated the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, which did not require workers to be dispatched from the above I’s dispatch of 12 employees to work for simple manufacturing, processing, and product inspection within the above I’s workplace, but did not require workers to be dispatched from the above I’s dispatch of 12 employees, such as V, to work for the above work, regardless of the need to be dispatched from the above worker's temporary dispatch of workers or to temporarily dispatch workers to work for product inspection during the period from the date of the crime list to January 31, 2016.

G. Determination of a criminal judgment against Defendant H

On June 30, 2017, Defendant H was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and 80 hours for community service on one year and six months for the following criminal facts in relation to Plaintiff C’s disaster (Seoul District Court Decision 6913, 2016 High Court Decision 6913, 2017 High Court Decision 1618 (Merger), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

"The defendant 2016 Highest 69131 (Defendant H) is a representative of Q in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City R, who operates the business of manufacturing mobile phone parts with 33 regular workers employed. The direct production process of the manufacturing business may be used for temporary agency workers only when there is a vacancy due to childbirth, disease, injury, etc., or where it is necessary to secure human resources temporarily and intermittently.Notwithstanding this, the defendant is temporarily and temporarily employed at the above place of business from January 28, 2015 to February 23, 2016.

(4) Although there is no need to secure human resources intermittently, the defendant was dispatched to 103 workers, such as W, etc. to carry out the manufacturing business. As a result, the defendant was provided with services on temporary placement of workers for the manufacturing business."The defendant is the representative of Q Ro-gu in Incheon Metropolitan City, who actually controls the safety and health of workers at the place of business. ① The business owner shall, when workers are engaged in affairs of harmful substances subject to control inside the place of business, install a system or a small-scale distribution system to keep the hazardous substances subject to control at the place of business, to ensure that workers are not subject to protection of 6th alcohol, and that workers are not subject to protection at the place of business. ② The defendant is not subject to protection of 6th ethyl alcohol so that they are not subject to protection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 7, 18 through 21, 25, 37, 82, 88, 89, Eul's evidence 2, Eul's evidence 12, 14, 33 and Eul's evidence 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Relevant legal principles

A) An 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 labor, and is liable for damages arising from nonperformance of such duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082, Feb. 23, 199). In addition, in cases where an act of violating an employer’s duty of protection or duty of care for safety falls under the requirements of tort, the employer is liable for tort liability in concurrence with nonperformance liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997).

On the other hand, in relation to temporary placement of workers, a temporary work agency employs a worker and concludes a temporary placement contract with a user company to maintain the employment relationship, and accordingly, the temporary agency worker works for the user company under the direction and order of the user company. Thus, risks to life, body, and health that the temporary agency worker faces while on temporary placement work arise in the area controlled by the user company. The main text of Article 35(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers provides that "the temporary agency worker is deemed a user company as provided in subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, and the same Act shall apply to temporary placement work of the temporary agency worker" in the main text of Article 35(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers by deeming the user company as a user company as the employer provided in subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and imposing, in principle, the user company as a matter of duty to prevent industrial accidents under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the safety of the worker.

In full view of the nature and contents of the relationship of work, direction, and order at the temporary placement of workers as above, it is reasonable to view that a user company, who is dispatched to its workplace by a temporary work agency and is engaged in continuous work for itself, permits the user company to bear the duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker in relation to the temporary placement work, and the temporary work agency enters into the temporary placement contract with the user company on such premise that the user company bears the duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker, and the temporary agency worker also provides the user company with labor on the premise that the user company bears the above duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker. Therefore, in relation to the temporary placement of workers, there is an implied agreement between the user company and the temporary agency worker on the fact that the user company bears the duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker, and therefore, even if the user company did not directly conclude the employment or labor contract with the user company, the user company may claim damages against the user company for violation of the duty of protection or safety consideration for the temporary agency worker (see, e.g.

B) In addition, where a person permits another person to use his/her own name in connection with a certain business, if the business is in an internal relationship with another person, and even if the business is not an employee of the nominal owner, it is the business of the nominal owner in a relationship with the outside, and there is no difference between the other person’s expression of the employee of the nominal owner and the other person. Therefore, if the person permitted to use the nominal name causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, the person permitted to use the nominal name shall be liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da365

2) Determination

A) Defendant D is a temporary work agency that signed each employment contract with Plaintiff A and B and has dispatched Plaintiff A and B to Defendant E, while maintaining the employment contract, and has maintained the direction and supervision relationship, such as paying wages to the above Plaintiffs. Defendant E is in the position of the user company to direct and supervise the employees in the process of permitting the use of his name by the husband UC, who is the actual operator of Plaintiff A, so as not to inflict damages on others such as workers, etc. in the course of direct work instruction and work programming. As such, Defendant D and E are obliged to take care of the protection or safety measures against Plaintiff A and B.

In addition, Defendant F is a temporary work agency that concluded an employment contract with Plaintiff C and dispatched Plaintiff C to Defendant G and Q operated by Defendant H while maintaining the employment contract. Defendant G and H are de facto users who leased the Plaintiff’s name to the Plaintiff, or users who directly work instructions and work programming, and are obligated to protect the Plaintiff C or to take safety care of the Plaintiff.

B) However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the Defendants comprehensively based on the results of the physical examination entrustment to the Y hospital president of this court, the following facts and circumstances are comprehensively considered: (a) Defendant D, E, and H jointly are liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, and Defendant F, G, and H jointly are jointly liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff C due to their breach of their duty to protect the Plaintiffs or to ensure safety care; (b) Defendant F, G, and H.

(1) The Plaintiffs have been engaged in the process of checking the quality of products produced through CNC equipment, or removing merium remaining in products produced by using ENC products, such as mertan injection, subdivision, etc.

(2) The doctor N andO of the M Hospital expressed their opinions to the effect that, in the work-related nature assessment report for each of the plaintiffs, symptoms, etc. of the plaintiffs are identical to the Mean addiction, there are no other causes that may cause the accident of the Methical plaintiffs, and that the disasters of the plaintiffs are highly likely to be toxic diseases by Methicalism.

(3) As harmful substances subject to control under Article 420 and attached Table 12 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health, Mexan is known to be easily absorbed through the above Minister, pulmonology, skin, and skin, and to be a substance causing damage to pulmonary disorder, pulmonary machine stimulate, and negotition boundary through a serious stimulic liquid and steam, and all the Plaintiffs were determined by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service as an occupational accident.

(4) The former Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent health disorder caused by gases, liquid, sludge, etc. discharged from his workplace in the course of conducting a business (Article 24(1)3 and 24(2)). However, Defendant E’s husband, who actually operates I, stated that he is a business owner: ① A business owner who actually operates I shall not install a local air exhauster with the capacity to emit the exhauster steam from his workplace; ② Before placing employees engaged in CNC work handling me with the characteristics and symptoms of mert, handling caution, wearing protective protective outfits, wearing method, emergency response method, etc.; ③ Defendant E’s husband did not provide an air exhauster with an air exhauster, and ③ did not provide an air exhauster to the employees who handle me with protective devices, such as air exhauster, etc.; ④ did not provide the employees who are in charge of handling me with an air exhauster to wear it.

(5) Defendant H also, who practically operates Q, was convicted of the facts constituting the crime that: (a) did not install a facility or a local air exhauster to cover gas steam or dust emitting sources of harmful substances subject to control; (b) did not cause workers to be exposed to the hazards; (c) did not require workers to wear protective equipment, such as dynasc; and (d) did not require workers to wear protective equipment, such as dynasc; and (e) did not require workers to wear protective clothes, protective equipment, protective equipment, and protective equipment. The judgment became final and conclusive.

B. Limitation on liability

1) The Defendants asserts that the following negligence should be limited to the Defendants’ responsibilities.

A) Plaintiff A is an employee in charge of water control inspection, and there is no risk of being directly exposed to Mean because Plaintiff A was not engaged in Methying raw materials to be cut off. However, even if time remains after the water control inspection, Plaintiff A had no instruction from Defendant E or I, it was difficult for Defendant E or I to help kind of production, and during which process, Plaintiff A was exposed to Methy because he was negligent in the occurrence of disaster.

B) In the event that Plaintiff B carries out the work of releasing the mertan, which is laid down in the materials that he had completed CNC cutting, the materials should be located in the slue part and the slueing the slue to the slue. There is no situation in which slue is directly contacted Plaintiff B when the work is carried out. Nevertheless, unlike other producers who had carried out the work in question for a longer time in I more I than Plaintiff B, the occurrence of mertan poisoning in the case of Plaintiff B only to the Plaintiff B, unlike the other producers who had carried out the work in question, shall be deemed to be due to the occurrence of a disaster, which was caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, such as: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of slueing the snow in the course of the work; or (b) the act of slueing the snow in the process of the work; or (c) the act of making the slue while carrying out the work.

C) On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff C had been fully aware of the work content of Q Q, a company to be dispatched at the time of signing an employment contract with Defendant F, and the content of the work. Defendant C also provided the Plaintiff C with a detailed explanation of the work content to be in charge on the same day, and provided the Plaintiff C with a separate explanation of the work direction, and provided the Plaintiff C with a separate explanation of the work direction, but the Plaintiff C did not use such safety equipment on the ground that the work is not easy. In addition, the fact that the other employees who worked at Q Q place for a longer period than the Plaintiff C were not working for more than six days, and that the accident occurred to the Plaintiff C only due to the specific body of the Plaintiff C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff C also has considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the accident.

2) However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., (i) the Plaintiffs appeared to have failed to be notified of the material they handle, (ii) the Defendants violated their duty to take health measures to prevent health disorder for workers at the workplace, and thus have been subject to criminal punishment; (ii) there is no objective evidence that the Defendants informed the Plaintiffs of the risks or cautions for each work; (iii) there is no evidence that the Plaintiffs’ disease was caused by the special transfer of the Plaintiffs; and (iv) insofar as the Defendants violated the duty to protect the Plaintiffs or to ensure safety consideration, the circumstance that other workers working at the same workplace did not cause the same symptoms as the Plaintiffs cannot be considered as the Plaintiffs’ negligence; and (iv) it is difficult to find objective materials that only the Plaintiffs did not properly observe the work method, or did not know about the work, or that they acted as far as they had a special impact on the occurrence of a disaster, the Defendants’ assertion and evidence submitted by the aforementioned Defendants alone are insufficient to acknowledge any fault or negligence.

C. Scope of liability for damages

The following shall be calculated on a monthly basis for the convenience of calculation, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. At the time of the accident of the amount of damages, the computation of the present price shall be governed by the simple discount method that deducts the intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.

[Based on the recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 81, 88, 93, Eul's evidence Nos. 20, 21, 23, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the Z Hospital Head, M Hospital Head, and AA Hospital Head, the result of this court's fact-finding reply to the Z Hospital Head, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. Plaintiff A

1) Personal information: as listed below:

A person shall be appointed.

(ii) lost earnings;

A) Maximum working age: As the social and economic structure and living conditions of the Republic of Korea aged 65 rapidly improve and develop, and the improvement and improvement of the legal system, it is reasonable to view that the maximum working age can be operated between 60 and 65 years, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da38909, Feb. 21, 2019).

B) Income: In case where a person engaged in an urban daily wage (22th day of the same month) has more ordinary labor wages than the income that he/she had earned at his/her workplace, it is highly probable that he/she will be engaged in general labor. Thus, barring any special circumstance, if the ordinary labor wage at the time of closing of argument exceeds the actual income earned at the time of loss of labor ability, barring any special circumstance, he/she shall select the said ordinary labor wage and calculate the actual income based on it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3134, Feb. 28, 1995). The fact that the Plaintiff’s income is less than the urban daily wage does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s income is calculated based on the urban daily wage.

(c)the ratio of injury to the latter and labor capacity;

(1) A: The Plaintiff’s visual disability ratio is 85%, and is 80% of the loss of telecommunication labor capacity in accordance with the Mabro labor capacity evaluation table.

(2) Native branch: The identification of Mabro and Maulism is confirmed, and this is equivalent to 35% of the labor disability rate in terms of the Mabrod Mabro labour disability assessment table.

(3) Overlapping disability rate: 87 per cent of the disability rate in terms of the assessment table for the loss of Mabrid labour capacity as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

D) The amount of net income

When calculating the actual income of Plaintiff A, it is as listed below, and it is KRW 624,307,770 in total.

A person shall be appointed.

(iii) a lost retirement allowance;

On the premise that Plaintiff A will receive retirement allowances of KRW 116,921,552 as of the monthly salary of KRW 3,104,112 calculated on the basis of the monthly salary of the first half of the year 2021, the amount above shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident and multiplied by 87% of the labor ability loss rate, the Plaintiff A shall be entitled to retirement allowances of KRW 35,279,220 as the daily retirement allowance.

Retirement allowances shall be paid to retired workers for at least 30 days’ average wages for one year’s continuous employment as retirement allowances, and shall be presumed to have been paid for at least one year’s continuous employment. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of a labor contract with Defendant D that the term of the employment contract shall be three months from the date of employment, and the contract termination is not notified at least seven days before the end of the contract period, the Plaintiff’s automatic extension and renewal may be recognized. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s employment contract period of Plaintiff A is, in principle, three months from the date of employment, and if the termination of the employment contract is notified at least seven days before the end of the contract period, it is difficult to readily conclude that Plaintiff A planned to receive retirement allowances at the time of retirement while he/she works for at least one year as Defendant D’s employee. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unacceptable.

(iv) nursing expenses;

A) Determination as to whether or not the victim of a personal accident needs care after treatment and its degree is based on the contents of the subsequent disability revealed through an expert’s appraisal, and it is an evaluation conducted in light of empirical and logical rules by comprehensively taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the victim’s age, mental condition, educational degree, and social and economic conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da30889, Oct. 13, 1998). Thus, even if the determination on the part and degree of the result of the doctor’s appraisal included therein, it is merely merely a presentation of a medical opinion as an expert, and it does not necessarily lead to the court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da46747, Dec. 22, 1998). In addition, it constitutes an evaluation conducted in light of the empirical and logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da30889, Oct. 13, 198). 196.

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts and circumstances, namely, Plaintiff A’s injury part and degree, treatment progress, part and degree of harm caused by post-treatment, and the necessity and content of the opening, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, the above Plaintiff appears to require 4 hours per day from January 15, 2019, when it appears that the Plaintiff would be able to be able to be able to enjoy daily lives in the real name from January 16, 2016, the date of the instant accident, until January 15, 2019, and 8 hours per day from the next day until November 21, 2074, the number of adult South-North Korea’s 1 to November 21, 207 (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da21210, Apr. 10, 199; 205Da75757, May 7, 2075, etc.).

A person shall be appointed.

(v) a credit;

A) Compensation for damages is aimed at compensating for damages. Therefore, if the victim has already received temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits pursuant to the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the deduction of the benefits from the lost amount of compensation can only be made between the parties in a mutually complementary relationship, in which the nature of the damage is identical. Therefore, even if the amount of temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits received by the victim exceeds the passive amount of damages recognized by the court, the excess amount of compensation should not be deducted in calculating the amount of compensation for damages whose nature is different. In the same sense, temporary layoff benefits are corresponding to the lost amount of profit during the period of suspension, so the amount of temporary layoff benefits shall be deducted only from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit during the period of suspension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da61703, Apr. 25, 199

(b) Temporary layoff benefits: 82,094,240 won;

The plaintiff A is required to deduct the above temporary disability compensation benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, so it shall be deducted from the lost income.

(c) Disability benefits: 44,464,33 won (per 72,182.36 x 616 days)

(1) The Plaintiff A is required to deduct the above disability benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

(2) Meanwhile, Defendant E asserts to the effect that, in the amount of damages payable to Plaintiff A, instead of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits paid or to be paid in the future, the current price ought to be deducted by means of interim interest deduction. However, Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides, “If a beneficiary receives insurance benefits for the same cause, the policyholder shall be exempted from liability for damages under the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount. In such cases, a person who receives a disability compensation annuity or survivors’ compensation annuity shall be deemed to have received the lump-sum disability compensation benefits or survivors’ compensation benefits.” As such, Article 80(2) latter part of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act limits the scope of deduction to the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits which have not yet been paid, the difference between the disability compensation annuity and the lump-sum disability compensation benefits shall be deemed to have been the same as the payment method of disability benefits, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the amount of the disability compensation annuity or the lump-sum disability compensation benefits already paid in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act 2.

D) According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 53,00,000 won, or 21,23, Defendant E paid to Plaintiff A, Defendant E paid the Plaintiff KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff on November 21, 2016, and KRW 53,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017, it can be recognized that Defendant E paid KRW 53,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2016 (Defendant E paid KRW 56,60,000 under the name of the Plaintiff, such as consolation money, etc.). Therefore, since Defendant E paid KRW 56,60,00,00 to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, it is reasonable to deduct this from the amount of compensation for damages. Therefore, this part of Defendant E’s assertion is reasonable within the scope of recognition as above.

6) Consolation money

The consolation money shall be determined as KRW 60,000,000 in consideration of the details and result of the Plaintiff’s accident, the degree of the harm inflicted on the Plaintiff A, the age, occupation and family relationship of the Plaintiff A, the mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff A, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant D and E jointly have a duty to jointly file a dispute over the existence or scope of the above Defendants’ performance obligation from January 16, 2016 to February 4, 2021, which is the date of the instant judgment, with the following: KRW 624,30,770 + KRW 550,736,578; KRW 82,094,240; KRW 44,464,3333; KRW 53,000 in advance payment of damages; + KRW 60,000 in advance payment of damages + KRW 60,000; and KRW 60,000 in compensation) and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the instant judgment where the Defendants’ performance obligation is deemed reasonable.

B. Plaintiff B

1) Personal information: as listed below:

A person shall be appointed.

(ii) lost earnings;

A) Maximum working age: 65 years of age (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided February 21, 2019)

(b) Income: Urban daily wage (22 days per month);

(1) In a case where a person employed in the workplace has more ordinary wages than those earned at his/her own workplace, the probability that he/she would be engaged in the ordinary labor. Thus, barring any special circumstance, in a case where the ordinary labor wages at the time of the closing of argument are larger than the actual income earned at the time of the loss of labor capacity, barring any special circumstance, he/she shall select the said ordinary labor wages and calculate the actual income based on them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3134, Feb. 28, 1995). The Plaintiff’s income of the Plaintiff B is less than the urban daily wage, and thus, the Plaintiff’s income shall be calculated on the basis of

(2) Defendant E asserts that, as Plaintiff B is a foreign employee as a Korean national of Chinese nationality, the total maximum working age cannot be applied, and that, based on urban daily wage, the remaining period should be calculated on the basis of the wages of daily workers in China in the field of China.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 20, Plaintiff B may be recognized as having been issued with Chinese nationality or F-5 as a permanent resident who entered the Republic of Korea. Thus, Plaintiff B may work while staying in the Republic of Korea until the date on which he reaches 65 years of age, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff B may work, and the total maximum working age should be applied to Defendant E’s aforementioned assertion.

C) The ratio of the loss of occupational ability and labor ability: both sides are 85 per cent of the loss of overall labor ability in accordance with the assessment table of the loss of occupational ability due to the safety of visual force.

D) The amount of net income

When calculating the actual income of Plaintiff B, it is as listed below, and it is a total of KRW 609,955,867.

A person shall be appointed.

(iii) a lost retirement allowance;

On the premise that Plaintiff B will receive retirement allowances of KRW 118,214,932 at the age of 65 based on monthly wage of KRW 3,104,112, which was calculated on the basis of the urban daily wage applied in the first half of 2021, Plaintiff B shall seek 34,59,492, which is an amount calculated at the present price at the time of the accident and multiplied by 85% of the labor ability loss rate, as a daily retirement allowance.

Retirement pay should be paid to the retired worker for at least 30 days’ average wage for one year’s continuous employment as retirement allowance, and the service should be presumed to have been continued for at least one year. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, Plaintiff B entered into a labor contract with Defendant D setting the term of the employment contract to be three months from the date of employment, and the contract termination is not notified at least seven days prior to the expiration date of the contract period, it can be acknowledged that the contract is automatically extended and the renewal is deemed to have been made. According to the above facts, Plaintiff B’s employment contract period is, in principle, three months from the date of employment, and if the contract termination is notified at least seven days before the expiration date of the contract period, it is difficult to readily conclude that Plaintiff B planned to receive retirement pay at the time of retirement while serving the retirement age for at least one year as Defendant D’s employee. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Plaintiff B cannot be accepted.

(iv) nursing expenses;

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, i.e., Plaintiff B’s injury part and degree of treatment, treatment progress, part and degree of harm caused by the aftermath, and the necessity and details of the opening, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, the above Plaintiff appears to require 4 hours per day from January 22, 2016, the date of the instant accident, to the date of January 21, 2019, 3 years after the three years after the date of the instant accident, which appears to be able to be familiar with daily life, 8 hours per adult male, and 4 hours per day from the following day until December 13, 2068 (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da21210, Apr. 10, 199; 2005Da575787, May 57, 207, etc.). Accordingly, if an urban area expense is calculated based on daily wage table, the following amount shall be deemed as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(v) a credit;

(a) Temporary layoff benefits: 75,716,100 won;

The plaintiff B is required to deduct the above temporary disability compensation benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, so it shall be deducted from the lost income.

B) Disability benefits: 103,782,202 won (=70,408.55 x 1,474 days)

(1) The plaintiff B is required to deduct the above disability benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

(2) Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that the amount of lump-sum disability compensation benefits to be deducted pursuant to the latter part of Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act when a beneficiary receives a disability compensation annuity is equivalent to the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits that would have been paid pursuant to Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act if the beneficiary would have selected and claimed the payment of lump-sum disability compensation benefits instead of the disability compensation annuity period or the amount of the already paid pension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da41869, Oct. 4, 2018). As such, in the case of Plaintiff B, the amount of the lump-sum disability compensation benefits to be deducted pursuant to the latter part of Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be deducted from the actual income in calculating the disability benefits (70,408.5 】 Article 57(2) [Attachment 2] of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

(c) Nursing benefits: 8,372,250 won;

(1) Article 61(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides, “The nursing benefits shall be paid to a person who has received medical care benefits under Article 40 and is actually under nursing care due to the need of constant or frequent nursing care after healing.” The main sentence of Article 80(3) provides, “If a beneficiary has received money or goods equivalent to the insurance benefits under this Act for the same reason under the Civil Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes, the GEPS shall not pay the insurance benefits under this Act to the extent of the amount calculated by converting the money or goods received by the beneficiary in a manner prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 80(3) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides, “The Industrial Accident Insurance Act has the same nature as the damage subject to insurance benefits and the damage subject to civil compensation, and in a complementary relationship between the insurance benefits and the damages, it is recognized the exemption of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service or the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service from liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da61703, Apr. 25, 1995; 2007Du241.

(2) The plaintiff B is required to deduct the above nursing benefits received from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and thus, it shall be deducted from the nursing expenses.

D) According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 21 and 23, Defendant E’s advance payment for damages that Defendant E paid to Plaintiff B: KRW 53,00,000 or KRW 21,23, the fact that Defendant E paid to Plaintiff B the sum of KRW 53,00,000 won on December 20, 2016, KRW 1.5 million on December 1, 2016, KRW 150,000 on January 19, 2017, and KRW 53,00,000 on January 19, 2017 can be acknowledged (Defendant E paid to Plaintiff B under the pretext of consolation money, etc., so it is argued that the full amount should be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages to Plaintiff B, but it is not sufficient to accept the submitted evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is reasonable to deduct this portion of the claim by Defendant E from the amount of compensation for damages.

6) Consolation money

The amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 60,000,000 in consideration of the details and result of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the accident, the degree of the disability suffered by the Plaintiff B, the age, occupation and family relationship of Plaintiff B, the mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff B, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant D and E jointly have a duty to jointly pay the Plaintiff B 979,821,893 won (i.e., lost income 609,95,867 won + 550,736,578 won + 75,716,100 won for temporary disability benefits - disability benefits - 103,782,202 - nursing benefits - advance payment for damages + 53,000,000 won + 60,000 won for damages + 60,000 won for damages) and damages for delay calculated annually from January 22, 2016 to February 4, 2021, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to perform the obligation.

C. Plaintiffs C.

1) Personal information: as listed below:

A person shall be appointed.

(ii) lost earnings;

A) Maximum working age: 65 years of age (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided February 21, 2019)

B) Income: In a case where a person engaged in an urban daily wage (22th day of the same month) has more ordinary labor wages than the income he/she had earned at his/her workplace, it is highly probable that he/she will be engaged in the ordinary labor. Thus, barring any special circumstance, if the ordinary labor wages at the time of closing of argument are larger than the actual income earned at the time of loss of labor ability, barring any special circumstance, he/she shall select the said ordinary labor wages and calculate the actual income based on them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3134, Feb. 28, 1995). The Plaintiff C’s income is less than the urban and daily wage, and thus, the Plaintiff’s income is calculated based on the urban daily wage.

(c)the ratio of injury to the latter and labor capacity;

(1) Ansan: The plaintiff C currently has a visual disability rate of 100% and is 85% of the loss of the ability to work for telegraph in accordance with the evaluation table for the loss of the ability to work for Mablodrid.

(2) Native branch: The identification and opulism are verified. This is equivalent to 42% of the labor disability rate in terms of the Mabroddra’s loss of labor capacity in accordance with the evaluation table for the loss of labor capacity.

(3) Overlapping disability rate: A disability rate shall be 91.30% in terms of the assessment table for the loss of Mabrid labour capacity as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

D) The amount of net income

When calculating the actual income of Plaintiff C, it is as listed below, and it is a total of KRW 656,006,011.

A person shall be appointed.

(iii) a lost retirement allowance;

On the premise that Plaintiff C will receive retirement allowances of KRW 114,34,792 as of the monthly salary of KRW 3,104,112 calculated on the basis of the monthly wage of the first half of the year 2021, the amount above shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident and the amount calculated by multiplying the rate of loss of labor ability by 91.30% shall be claimed as retirement allowances in the daily room.

A retirement allowance shall be paid to a retired worker for at least 30 days’ average wages for one year’s continuous service period as a retirement allowance, and shall be premised on the continuous service period for at least one year. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that Plaintiff C, as an employee affiliated with Defendant F, continuously worked for at least one year and planned to receive a retirement allowance at the time of retirement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Plaintiff C cannot be accepted.

(iv) nursing expenses;

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, i.e., Plaintiff C’s injury level and degree, treatment progress, part and degree of harm caused by post-treatment, and the necessity and details of the opening, which can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings, the above Plaintiff appears to require 8 hours per day from February 16, 2019, an adult male, and 4 hours per day from the next day to December 13, 2068, from the next day to the end of December 13, 2068 (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da21210, Apr. 10, 190). Accordingly, if an urban area’s opening wage is calculated based on the daily average wage, the following amount shall be the same as KRW 151,518,158,158,100, and the following amount shall be the same.

A person shall be appointed.

(v) a credit;

(a) Temporary layoff benefits: 147,309,180 won;

The plaintiff C is required to deduct the above temporary disability compensation benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, so it shall be deducted from the lost income.

B) Disability benefits: 187,546,852 won (=127,236.67 x 1,474 days)

The plaintiff C is required to deduct the above disability benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, so it shall be deducted from the lost income.

(c) Nursing benefits: 3,513,600 won;

Since the plaintiff C is required to deduct the nursing benefits received from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, it shall be deducted from the opening expenses.

D) the deduction of criminal agreement

Defendant F, G, and H claimed that Defendant H paid KRW 10,00,000 as a criminal agreement amount to Plaintiff C, and that such amount should be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages to Plaintiff C. According to the evidence No. 1 of E, Defendant H may acknowledge the fact that Defendant H paid KRW 10,00,000 to Plaintiff C in the criminal trial process, and in a case where Defendant H agreed that the perpetrator would not be punished against the perpetrator in the course of investigation or criminal trial with respect to the perpetrator of the tort, it is reasonable to deem that the amount was paid as part of compensation (property damage) unless there are circumstances, such as that the victim explicitly stated that the amount was paid as consolation money as part of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 30, 2012). Accordingly, this part of the claim by Defendant F, G, and H is reasonable.

6) Consolation money;

The consolation money shall be determined as KRW 60,000,000 in consideration of the details and result of the Plaintiff’s accident, the degree of the harm inflicted upon the Plaintiff C, the age, occupation and family relationship of the Plaintiff C, the mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff C, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant F, G, and H jointly share KRW 919,46,560 (2) 656,06,01 from daily actual income + KRW 551,810,181 - Temporary disability benefits - Disability benefits 147,309,180 - Disability benefits 3,513,600 - Compensation benefits - Damages 10,000,000 + solatium 60,000,000 + damages 60,000,000,000) from February 17, 2016, which are the date of the occurrence of the disaster, the above Defendants are liable to pay damages at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until February 4, 2016, and at the rate of 10% per annum or 2% per annum from the day after the judgment of this case, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and the highest sentence of judge.

Judges Park Jae-jin

Judge associated Judge

1) Although Plaintiff A is deemed to have received disability benefits from Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service as KRW 44,464,338, the amount seems to have been written in 44,464,333.