1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,931,158 as well as 5% per annum from November 18, 2015 to April 17, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation mainly responsible for the manufacture and sale of sandbrid board products, and the plaintiff is an overseas Korean who works for the defendant's employee and is a person who has worked for the defendant's employee.

B. On November 18, 2015, at around 10:30, the Plaintiff was at the center while working at the Defendant’s panel, and the Plaintiff was faced with an accident where he was at the bottom of the printing roller’s moving roll, wherein he was at the left place in the chain.

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

The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cutting off the 2,3rd left-hand 2, 3 metive tensions on the left-hand side, cutting off the alley, cutting down the upper-hand side, cutting down the upper-hand side of the 2,3 metives, and ruptures. D.

After the instant accident, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 25,047,470 by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 and 7, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as maintaining human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and an employee is liable to compensate for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty of protection.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da47129, May 16, 2000).

In the instant case, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., ① the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, did not submit materials to deem that the Defendant, a worker, conducted safety education regarding the prevention of safety accidents and emergency measures, etc., that may occur during the instant accident. ② At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was working after being exposed to the outside, but the Defendant was at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s safety accident by blocking the exposure covered by the said chain.