1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Under the underlying facts, Defendant Hyundai Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Enterprise”) is a company that manufactures automobile parts by receiving the lower office from Defendant East Asia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant East Asia”).

On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with Defendant Hyundai Enterprises with terms of a labor contract from April 18, 2014 to April 17, 2015, with terms of a duty frame, contact, processing, and assembly.

On April 19, 2014, around 19:25, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident that cut off the 2-5 balance from the press at the right point at the Defendant East Asian Industrial Complex (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Plaintiff received insurance benefits from Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service) in total from KRW 5,043,280, medical care benefits, KRW 4,864,130, and KRW 28,912,950, and KRW 38,820,360.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 8-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, upon receiving the work instruction from the employees of Defendant East-gu, carried materials on the press machine, worked in the manner of two persons, who manipulate the operating location of the press machine from the following behind the Plaintiff by employees of other Defendant Hyundai Business.

However, the instant accident was caused by the wind that the employee who operates the operating location caused the Plaintiff to have materials attached to the press machine, and then handles the operating location.

Therefore, Defendant Hyundai Enterprise is an employer of an employee who operated the operation location of press machine, and Defendant Dong Dong-gu is the conductor who ordered work, and is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. In full view of the respective descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings in witness B’s testimony, the press machinery that the Plaintiff was involved in the accident shall be directly released by one structural engineer after the materials are put to the press machine working unit.