1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,895,752 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 17, 2016 to December 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 1, 1990, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of processing and exporting and importing fishery products in the Defendant Company, which is engaged in the business of processing and exporting and importing fishery products, has been engaged in the business of packing the following stuffs.

B. At around 07:30 on May 9, 201, the Plaintiff, at the second floor of the factory of the Defendant Company located in Sacheon-si, loaded the freezing to be loaded below the lower floor on the cargo-use elevator (a 90cm, 100cm, 153cm in height, 153cm, 50km in laden weight, hereinafter “instant elevator”), on the second floor of the factory of the Defendant Company located in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si (hereinafter “the instant elevator”). At the top of the instant elevator, the Plaintiff suffered from rupture rupture, rupture, rupture, rupture, and dupture (e.g., the left-hand rupture, rupture, rupture, rupture, left-hand rupture, and the left-hand rupture).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff applied for the payment of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and received KRW 70,60,030, medical care benefits 115,736,740, and disability benefits (pensions) 12,258,650.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was asserting that the elevator of this case was loaded in freezing red to the elevator of this case, the left elevator was placed outside of the elevator and the power source location of the elevator of this case was installed, and the plaintiff's left trees come out to the lower floor, and the accident of this case occurred between the elevator of this case and the wall of this case, and the accident of this case did not occur due to the breakdown of the elevator of this case.

Therefore, the accident of this case is entirely by the plaintiff's fatherism, and the defendant is not liable to do so.

B. In full view of the evidence mentioned above 1 and the following circumstances acknowledged based on the overall purport of the pleading, the instant accident is in question.