1. As to Plaintiff A, the Defendant: (a) KRW 273,154,873; (b) KRW 5 million; and (c) KRW 5 million; and (b) from February 6, 2015 to August 20, 2020.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant, as a company producing saw fire by crushing waste timber, was employed as an employee of the Defendant on February 3, 2015.

(2) On February 6, 2015, Plaintiff A suspended by crushing waste timber loaded on waste timber and thereby transporting waste timber, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as a pipe click, etc., in which he/she puts the waste to a pipe, which he/she was in charge of causing damage to Plaintiff A, such as an open frame of the part on the right upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the blacker, damage to the right upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the wall, damage to the right upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the wall.

(3) At the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff A, without being well aware of the method of, and directions for, the operation of, the consortium at the time of the instant accident, served as a mixed worker on the site.

(4) Plaintiff B is the mother of Plaintiff A.

[Ground] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant, when ordering the Plaintiff A to engage in dangerous work, shall thoroughly educate the Plaintiff A of safety education, working methods, and cautions to prevent risks that may arise from such work, but the Plaintiff A was negligent in compelling the Plaintiff A to engage in a mixed work for not less than four days after his/her failure to engage in such education.

The Defendant is liable for tort caused by breach of the duty of protection and is liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff A due to the instant accident.

2. The plaintiff A, who has suspended the consortium, must promote the safety of the plaintiff himself by taking advantage of the other working tools, etc., but he neglected this in his care and did not properly know of the precautions, etc., but put in his hand his hands.