1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,800,830 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 25, 2015 to July 26, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Company and was on duty. On June 25, 2015, around 11:00, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the injury to the Defendant Company’s factory test tube (hereinafter “instant test tube”) at a height of about 3 to 4 meters in length on the top of about 6 meters of the entrance of the Defendant Company’s factory (hereinafter “instant work”). During the work to fix the Crat test tube at a height of about 6 meters in length (hereinafter “instant test tube”), the Plaintiff fell on the lower floor and fell on the lower floor, and fell on the lower floor to the lower end, and then fall on the top of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, the right side of the upper part of the lower part, the frat rupture, the three-meter rupture, the rupture, the three-metered rupture, the brain dust, the alle and the inner walls, the s.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

From June 25, 2015 to April 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received temporary disability compensation benefits of KRW 14,915,710 as industrial accident insurance proceeds due to the instant accident, and KRW 24,518,730 as well as health care benefit of KRW 24,518,730 as disability benefits of class 7 in the form of pension. The amount of lump-sum disability compensation benefits according to the disability benefit table in Article 57(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is equivalent to KRW 43,319,362 [=70,323.64 x 616 x 7 disability grade];

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence No. 1 to 4 and 7; Witness B and C’s partial testimony; Examination Results of the Plaintiff himself and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff alleged the occurrence of liability and the limitation 1 party’s assertion that the Plaintiff, who is another employee, was in possession of the Plaintiff for the instant work, and the Plaintiff was in possession of approximately six meters in length and about 15 km in weight on the bridge, and instructed B, who was the driver of the instant test institute, to get a height down to B, who was the driver of the instant test institute, to meet the horizontal plane of the test institute, and the Plaintiff did not change the weight of the test institute, and incurred the future between them.