1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to the defendant, the joint defendant corporation of the first instance and multi-child manpower and the plaintiff 13.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the victim of the industrial accident of this case as follows.

Co-defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant in the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "multi-child workforce") is a company for the purpose of temporary placement of workers, etc., and the defendant is a user company using the plaintiff as a temporary agency worker after concluding a contract for temporary placement of workers with multi-child workforce.

B. Multi-child human resources and the Defendant concluded a contract on the dispatch of workers on March 9, 2012.

Under this contract, the Plaintiff was dispatched from July 17, 2012 to October 16, 2012 to a private enterprise operated by Defendant B, and was engaged in the duties designated by the Defendant.

C. At around 11:00 on July 17, 2012 (the first day on which the plaintiff worked at the factory operated by the defendant) the plaintiff was involved in an accident where the boomed 2,3,4,5 water surface cut to the right hand on the wind, while the plaintiff was working for the dry machines at the factory operated by the defendant.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered injury from the instant accident to the executive cutting of the 2nd tier 1, the 3rd tier 1, the 4nd tier 1, the 5nd tier 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 200, the 4nd tier 1st 2nd 2nd 2

Accordingly, the plaintiff lost 21.8% labor ability. D.

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 7,751,840 of temporary layoff benefits, KRW 12,410,380 of medical care benefits, and KRW 23,804,050 of disability benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the result of the court of first instance’s physical commission to the head of the Scar University Hospital

2. Determination

A. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident occurred due to the mistake that the Defendant did not provide particular safety education while ordering the Plaintiff to engage in dangerous duties, and that no safety device was installed in the divers machine.