1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a party with the status of the defendant repair business of agricultural machinery.

The plaintiff is a person employed by the defendant on March 25, 2019.

B. The occurrence of the accident (1) the Plaintiff and the Defendant explosiveed the transferee who inspected on May 28, 2019 whether the electricity was properly supplied.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the application for industrial accident compensation, the Plaintiff entered the situation as follows.

On May 28, 2019, at around 9:00 a.m., Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, for the test of the supply of electricity at the Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, along with (the Defendant) the line, explosiond at the same time, and released from the line under the video treatment and skin transplant surgery on the left hand hand and the part of arms 2 degrees in depth.

(2) The Korea Labor Welfare Corporation recognized the instant accident as an industrial accident, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 8.6 million of temporary layoff benefits and medical care benefits amounting to KRW 4,784,510.

(3) The Plaintiff left a 37 cm thicker in length on the left arms suffered a picture due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of commission of physical appraisal, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty of care and safety consideration while working for the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,524,793, and KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, which is reduced by losing the ability to work by 5% due to the chests, (1) the amount of damages for medical expenses for the removal of chests, (2) the amount of damages for which KRW 5 million has been reduced.

B. (1) If the employer is liable for damages on the ground that the employer violated the duty to protect workers not to be able to predict that the accident may normally occur.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734 delivered on July 27, 2001). (2) In view of the total evidence submitted, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are only aware that the transferee was explosiond due to the electrical factor while working.

such a.