1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 126,478,013, and KRW 4,000,000 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 2,00,000 to the plaintiff C and the plaintiff D, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) From June 1, 2011 to July 17, 2011, the date of the accident, as seen below, Plaintiff A worked as the representative of the Defendant from F F to F. (2) On July 17, 2011, the Plaintiff A continued to have fixed the principal body mold, while performing the work of using the principal body mold with a large amount of 3 tons from F. As such, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as cutting down the right-hand body frame, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered a disability that has lost the labor ability of 16% for three years from April 23, 2014, which is the date of appraisal of the labor capacity of 48% of the upper half of the upper half, 14% of the left-hand satisfaction, 27% of the upper half, and 16% of the scarcity and the scarcity.

(B) The Plaintiffs asserted that the labor ability of 90% and 30% was lost in accordance with the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act in the case of the right frame and the left-hand satisfaction, but considering the relative unfairness of the above criteria, it is more reasonable to determine the loss rate of labor capacity as stated in the above recognized facts based on the beer list. The sum of these values would be 72.58% from July 17, 2011, which is the date of the accident, to April 23, 2017, which is 3 years from the date of the appraisal of the labor ability of the Mabrid, and 67.35% from the following day, permanently lose the labor ability of 67.35%.

In addition, due to the accident in this case, the costs of KRW 10,200,000 for the re-building operation of the double wall to prevent the escape symptoms caused by the loss of the double wall, and KRW 18,20,000 for the anti-scam type caused by the accident in this case.

3 At the time of the instant accident, four workers, including the Plaintiff, were at the site, including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not receive safety education from the Defendant, on-site supervisor, etc., and did not have any particular safety equipment, and unlike general cases, the main mold is used for convenience.