1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 66,56,724.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”).

(1) On October 1, 2013, at around 08:30, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff used a crushing machine installed at a restaurant to cut the garment; (b) the mincator was cut off; (c) all the mincator was cut off; and (d) the mincator was laid down by putting the mincator at the entrance of the mincator. (b) B, even though the Plaintiff was put in the mincator, but all the mincator was put in the mincator; and (c) the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as damage

(3) The Plaintiff received medical care benefits of KRW 14,214,50, temporary layoff benefits of KRW 16,208,80, disability benefits of KRW 16,902,620 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service for the period of medical care from October 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant's employee B was confirmed as to whether the plaintiff was deducted from mination machine, and the accident of this case occurred due to negligence in spite of the duty of care to turn on all of them. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the employer of this case under Article 756 of the Civil Code. 2) As to this, the defendant claims that the employer is exempted from the employer's liability under the proviso of Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code, since he paid considerable attention to the supervision of the employee.

With respect to the liability under Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, if an employer or a supervisor of affairs on behalf of an employer has paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the employee or if there is any damage even if he has paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of affairs, he shall not be liable for compensation, but such circumstance shall be

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da58538 delivered on May 15, 1998, etc.). So, the occurrence of the instant accident occurred.