1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,151,634 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 7, 2012 to November 12, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and had another worker cut iron plates in a certain size at the workplace of the Defendant’s operated by the Defendant and then was engaged in the eroding in a certain form. Around 16:00 on August 7, 2012, while operating eroding machines at the workplace and operating eroding machines at the eroding, other workers suffered from the eroding machines in order to get off the eroding machines, which are set up above the work stand up in order to get off the eroding machines, and at the same time, after examining the eroding machines in order to get off the eroding machines with a eroding machine installed at the eroding machine’s shop of the Defendant’s operation. At the same time, the Plaintiff suffered from the eroding machines such as 2,3,4,54, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, eromosomes, open 3, open eromod balance and eromos.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). / [Evidence] Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the facts found as above, the defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, has been negligent in neglecting his duty to consider the safety of the plaintiff's employee by improving the working environment so that the plaintiff may work safely without doing any dangerous action, such as getting a steel plate for the eromatic work while operating a eroding machine, etc., and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. If the Plaintiff’s limitation of liability also needs to go up to the workplace in order to take a clerical error in the iron board for the eromatic work, it is erroneous that the Plaintiff neglected to ensure its safety by first preventing all of the eroding machine from falling off, and by going up to the workplace, etc.