1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,237,947 as well as 5% per annum from March 6, 2014 to September 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. In the absence of dispute, on February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, while working for the Defendant Company as a member of the company, was removed by means of tape on March 6, 2014, at around 15:00, from the 3rd Rain Ra of the rolling machine manufacturing the product, and the left hand, together with the wall being put, suffered injury, such as the multiple pressure divers damage caused by the left hand to the left hand of the said machine, the diverse cutting of the 3 balance of the left hand, and the diversized diversized diversified pulging of the original divers.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 2. Occurrence of liability for damages

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 delivered on February 23, 199). In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as to this case, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant provided 8 hours safety education to the plaintiff on the date of entry. However, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant provided 8 hours safety education to the plaintiff. Furthermore, since the contents of the plaintiff's work were removed from the rolling machine that took place as well as the contents of the plaintiff's work were removed from the rolling machine that took place as a tape, it is dangerous for the plaintiff to promptly suffer loss from the machine during his work, so the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. The limitation of liability is examined, in the event that the Plaintiff’s removal of foreign substances is carried out in the machinery filled by the Plaintiff, the hand may be sealed in the machinery.