1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,548,458 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 29, 2017 to November 22, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff has been employed as a non-regular worker for the Defendant’s non-regular workers.

B. On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) laid the upper part of a hydrotension press machine owned and possessed by the Defendant; (b) cut the upper part of the said machine into the front part; (c) repeated the operation of the said machine into the front part of the machine; and (d) repeated the operation pressing into the front part of the machine; and (c) divided the left part of the machine into the front part of the machine; and (d) sustained the pressure trac with the part of the unit.

C. The above machinery was manufactured so that two pressings can be divided into two hands to prevent the original safety accident. At the time of the accident, one pressing is fixed in a tape, so that it can be divided into a tape, and there was no safety device to automatically suspend the operation if a part of the body entered the part where the pressure of the machinery is turned into the part where the pressure of the machinery.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-5-2, result of physical appraisal commission, purport of whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the above machinery was not equipped with sufficient devices to prevent harm to the body of the operator, and there was a defect in the preservation.

As such, the defendant, who is the possessor of the structure, is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff.

B. Although the defendant's liability for damages is recognized as above, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant violated the safety duty as an employer and caused the above accident, which is affected by comparative negligence, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is also examined.

As seen above, the Plaintiff was engaged in repeated work to operate the voltage press machine, and the Defendant’s business partner’s business partner’s withdrawal of the raw materials produced by approaching the said machine without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Plaintiff’s business partner’s withdrawal was carried out in the vicinity of the machine, and the instant work pressing was divided into the said machine, and the Defendant’s business partner’s injury was sustained.