1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,314,415 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 21, 2012 to May 29, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant’s employee, ceased to have his cell phone while getting a cell phone at the storage place in the Defendant Company, as an office. However, while having been driven by C, an employee of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was shocking the Plaintiff and going beyond this, and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as damage to the pressure visher on the right side, damage to the right side by damaging the pressure visher on the back of the back of the Plaintiff, damage to the right side by damaging the pressure visher, damage to the right side visher, damage to the right side visher, and unfolding the right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff received medical care benefits from the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service until May 23, 2013, and completed the medical care due to the instant accident.

3) At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff served as the Deputy Director of the Production Management at the time of the instant accident, and was in charge of safety education for the employees of the Defendant Company. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, as well, described in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and 7 (which include a branch number; hereinafter the same shall

witness C and D each testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant suffered the above injury to the plaintiff due to negligence, which neglected the duty of safety and management of the plaintiff's employer, employer, workplace, etc., and thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages caused by

C. Since the Plaintiff was aware that the instant accident was a space for transporting the vehicular traffic in which the place of the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff was able to exercise due care to avoid an accident, such as taking care of the surrounding areas or having cars in a sound. However, the instant accident was caused by a mobile phone call while stopping the walk.

Furthermore, the plaintiff is in a position in charge of safety education for employees as the Deputy Director of Production Management, and thus the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents is expected to be more expected.

In addition, there are various arguments in the proceedings of this case.