1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 191,023,416 as well as 5% per annum from August 31, 2016 to February 13, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2016, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) entered into an employment contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and around that time, Defendant C, a local government of Vietnam, was dispatched to Defendant C’s Manam Factory, a local government of Vietnam, to serve as an overseas state resource.

B. On August 31, 2016, at around 20:00, the Deceased instructed the Defendant C’s factory located in the area of his blood blood blood, and the instant driver, who is a local employee of Vietnam, to move the red glass binding in the factory. In the process of combining the glass of the driver’s own car, the Plaintiff’s loss of balance was caused by the death of the deceased’s body (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Deceased died on the same day while suffering serious injury, etc. from the accident of this case and moving to a hospital.

C. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased, and is the only heir of the deceased.

On the other hand, around June 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 152,564,040 from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service as a lump sum payment for the industrial accident of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 18, 23, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that Defendant C failed to perform his duty of care to operate the vehicle after being equipped with safety devices, such as fixing devices, while the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to directly employ the driver employed by Defendant B, as long as the Defendants C has the nature of Defendant B’s local subsidiary.

Even if the employer is not denied, the employer's nature cannot be denied.

The employer is an accident in this case.