1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 36,837,344 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2013 to February 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company as of December 1, 2008 and posted plastic tubes, which are containers of cosmetics on a consortium in the printing machine work room installed in the company printing division, to print them.

(2) Around 18:00 on August 29, 201, the Plaintiff was engaged in printing work at the printing machine’s shop, and the Pib was put in the vicinity of the printing machine. As such, the Plaintiff was injured by the Plaintiff, such as the left side of the printing machine and the labization of the lab.

(3) At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff, alone, was working in the above printing machine. However, the Plaintiff did not receive safety education regarding the operation of the above printing machine, and the above printing machine did not have safety devices against the same case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-1, 6-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant, as an employer, sufficiently educated the plaintiff's employee so that the plaintiff can work safely, and neglected to provide physical facilities such as safety devices, despite the fact that there was a duty of care to do so. The accident of this case occurred by the defendant's negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. Limit of liability, however, although the plaintiff could have known that the part of the printing machine of this case was dangerous, his own safety in that he did not stop the printing machine operation or take measures such as requesting the assistance of other workers, even though he could have known that the printing machine of this case was dangerous.