1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

No. 4, No. 24, No. 8, and No. 18, each of the “this court” is “court of the first instance”; No. 5, No. 13, “Witness 14, and No. 19,” respectively, “the date on which pleadings are closed” shall be “the date on which pleadings are closed in the first instance trial”; No. 8, “one household school at the court of the first instance” shall be “the date on which the first instance trial is declared”; and “the date on which the first instance trial is declared” shall be “the date on which the first instance trial is declared (the claim cited by the judgment of the first instance court is maintained as it is; thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant has different from the date on which the first instance judgment is declared to the date on which the judgment of the first instance court is rendered to the date on which the judgment of the first instance court is declared as of April 26, 2013.”

The head of the 4th heading 20th heading shall be the heading, and the heading 6th heading 10 heading “fire-fighting heading heading heading” each shall be the heading for fire-fighting heading heading.

The Defendant’s “Defendant” of the heading 2, 4, and 9 on the 5th page 2 is identified as “Defendant Company.”

In the 6th page 3, safety education for workers employed by C under the instant subcontract agreement was conducted by the Defendant Company, and all the Defendant Company takes charge of safety equipment, etc.

Part 7, the overall proposal from Part 4 to Part 5 is entirely deducted because it is less than KRW 9,980,256, which corresponds to 50% of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio during the period of hospitalization (=75,608 won x 22 days x 12 months x 50% of temporary layoff benefits x 26,061,00 won. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the remaining 16,080,744 won should be deducted from the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff, but the temporary layoff benefits correspond to the lost profit during the period of suspension.