1. The Defendant’s KRW 114,706,501 as well as 5% per annum from April 4, 2018 to December 6, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (AC and male) is an employee of the LABD, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a contract with the LABD for user compensation liability insurance with the insurance period from May 12, 2015 to May 12, 2016, the maximum compensation amount of which is KRW 200 million.

B. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered pictures on face, fry, breast, right-hand arms, etc. by being exposed to input materials leaked outside the reaction machine due to the outbreak of chron alcohol inside the reaction machine while using amlodipine in the reaction machine for the production of amlodip acid without any special safety protection device in the factory in Silodip acid located in Silodipine-si.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The employer of the occurrence of liability is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying employment or labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving physical environment, so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor. As such, D is a company dealing with chemicals, and the Plaintiff was a company dealing with a chemical, and the Plaintiff did not have any specific safety protection device at the time of the entry of the chemical in response to the response according to his superior’s instructions, as seen earlier, it is determined that the instant accident occurred due to the violation of the employer’s duty of protection or the violation of the duty of safety consideration. Thus, the Defendant, who entered into the LABD and the employer compensation liability insurance, is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff

B. The Defendant limited liability, even though the Plaintiff did not wear a safety protective gear, and had a duty of care to avoid immediately the place of the raw material input.