1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,851,939 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 27, 2013 to September 23, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells main products, and the Plaintiff is an employee who worked in the Defendant plant from around December 1, 2010 to the employee of the Defendant plant. 2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the transfer and borrowing of the pipe around 00:10 on March 26, 2013, while the Plaintiff was engaged in the pipe loading work at the Defendant plant, due to the transfer and borrowing of the pipe, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury, such as the two hundreds of both sides, the rupture on both sides inside and outside the right side, the rupture on the right side,

(3) After receiving treatment of the instant accident, the Plaintiff received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service the medical care period from March 26, 2013 to April 30, 2014 (222 days of hospitalization), temporary layoff benefits (22,067,470 won, medical care benefits 21,923,560 won, disability benefits 18,01,950 won. [Judgment of the court below] The Plaintiff received 22,067,470 won, medical care benefits 21,923,560 won, disability benefits 18,001,950 won.

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer shall be obligated to devise necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and where an employee suffers loss by violating such duty, the employer shall be liable to compensate for such loss.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129 delivered on May 16, 2000, etc.). The Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s employer, has the duty of care to maintain and manage the transfer lending in a safe way and to ensure the safe work of employees such as the Plaintiff.

However, the Defendant did not place sufficient personnel to minimize the occurrence of danger through smooth communication between transfer and lending operation personnel and on-site workers, and did not provide the Plaintiff with adequate training on the operation and safety accidents of the machinery. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

The defendant fulfilled his duty.