1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she joined the Defendant Company’s Ulsan Factory and was in charge of the work related to the operation of FEM equipment (hereinafter “instant work”). On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the escape certificate of post-signing signboards (spathability), spawnitis and tension No. 4-5 in the lusium that occurred after the lusing work at around 14:00 on December 31, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). Although the instant work performed by the Plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of an accident in the essential part, the Defendant failed to perform its duty of care to anticipate such occurrence of danger and avoid risks through safety education, work transition, etc., and thereby, incurred the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. As an incidental duty under the relevant legal doctrine and the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, in order to impose tort liability for physical accidents inflicted on an employer who bears the duty to protect an employee, it shall be acknowledged that the employer was negligent in failing to take any particular safety measures for avoidance despite the fact that he/she knew or could have known that the physical accidents caused by the relevant work could occur, and the existence of such negligence is the burden of proof for the employee who claimed compensation for damages.

In addition, if the work performed by an employee can be performed solely without any particular group or injury in light of the empirical rule, the employer cannot be held liable for tort on the ground that the employer violated the duty to protect the employee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da60115 delivered on March 10, 2000)

C. According to each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff applied for medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits due to the disaster of this case.