1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2011, the Defendant, who operates the DNA Art in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Mamart”), was employed by the Plaintiff and performed the delivery of the Mart article for about six months.

B. On August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the escape symptoms, etc. of conical signboards No. 2-3-4, while moving approximately 10 km of sublime boxes from the Mat on or around August 9, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport prior to pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, has the plaintiff's employer conduct safety management and safety education in advance on the items that may have a group of adult male transport, and is negligent in neglecting the direction and supervision on safety management.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the determination of an employment contract, in order to impose tort liability on an employer with respect to physical accidents suffered by an employee under Article 750 of the Civil Act, it shall be recognized that the employer was negligent in failing to take any particular safety measures for avoidance, although he/she knew or could have known that the physical accidents caused by the relevant employee could occur due to his/her employment. The existence of such negligence lies in the burden of proof for the employee who claimed damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da60115 Decided March 10, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da20183 Decided July 22, 2004, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant was negligent in leading and supervising the safety management in light of the evidence that was incurred prior to examining the instant case, and the court’s order to submit documents to the head of the regional headquarters of the National Health Management Corporation, the result of the order to submit documents, and the purport of the pleading, which are recognized by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances.