1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,113,90 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from February 12, 2019 to January 15, 2021.

1. The following facts shall be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including evidence with numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s employee, tried to remove pipe residues remaining inside metal cutting machines (hereinafter “the instant cutting machines”) at the Defendant’s factory located in Ssung C on February 12, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant cutting machines”). B. The Plaintiff suffered damage to the right upper part of the instant accident, i.e., f., cut the upper part of the water 1 hand, cut the upper part, cut the upper part of the 2nd part, cut the upper part of the water 1, cut the upper part, cut the upper part of the water 2nd, cut the upper part of the water 1,2, and 3 water , and damaged the pressure tension of the right upper part.

On February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff received recompacting and transplantation of 1 and 2 water on the right side, and received unfolding surgery on March 13, 2019.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle that is accompanied by a labor contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures such as improving human and physical environment so that a person under consideration does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor. If a person under consideration suffers losses by violating such duty of protection (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129, May 16, 200, etc.). The above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 111, witness evidence, E testimony, and the Plaintiff’s testimony as a result of the Plaintiff’s examination, as well as processing pipes from the cutting machine of this case, which is a normal automated equipment, and the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for these losses.