1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,645,350 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 24, 2015 to March 23, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant and thereafter was engaged in the Defendant’s business of packing, transporting, etc. products at the place of business operated by the Defendant from that time until the 30th of the same month

B. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) loaded the products on the water bags of steel materials with four wheels; (b) towed the products facing the Plaintiff; (c) moved the products in the following way: (d) while the factory site D, the factory site of the said company, carried the products in the following manner (hereinafter “the instant work”); (d) electricityed on the section at approximately 6-10 degrees at the narrow speed of approximately 6-10 degrees; and (e) suffered from accidents, such as definite damage and blood species, etc., without the right side.

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

With respect to the above accident, the Plaintiff was treated as an employee of the Defendant, and received medical care from the date of the accident until January 2015, and received disability benefits 3,255,510 won from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service after receiving a determination of disability grade 14 grade 10.

【Unfounded facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap’s evidence No. 8, Eul’s video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant, who neglected safety education for the steel scrap. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 841,850 as compensation for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, KRW 1,30,00 as compensation for the damages incurred by the instant accident, KRW 7,200,00 as compensation for consolation money, KRW 9,341,850 as compensation for damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant conducted safety education to ensure that workers do not suffer from safety accidents by means of excessive or unreasonable transportation, and neglected the work environment in spite of the duty of care to maintain the work environment so that workers do not have any problem in transporting the products, and the accident of this case caused the above negligence by the defendant.