1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,205,001 as well as 5% per annum from March 5, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and the next day.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The defendant is a person operating the manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name of "D" in the racing-si. The plaintiff is a worker retired after entering into a labor contract with the defendant on November 1, 2002 and September 3, 2012. 2) On March 5, 2013, the plaintiff suffered injury, such as the plaintiff's three-do images, the right-hand image, and three-do images, the right-hand image, etc., of which are not left by the plaintiff, in the process of preparing for the hard-mond work at the above D's workplace, around March 16:43, 2013.

(3) The Plaintiff received disability benefits of KRW 12,861,100, KRW 35,05,230, and KRW 2,990 during the period of medical care from March 5, 2013 to September 28, 2013, from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation due to the instant accident. The Plaintiff received disability benefits of KRW 12,861,10, KRW 35,05,230, and KRW 2,990,760 during the period of medical care. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 4, and the evidence Nos. 4, 5-1 through 7, the testimony of witnesses E, the testimony of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, the Daegu North Vice Governor of the Korea Labor Welfare and Welfare Service, the branch offices of

B. 1) The Defendant’s breach of the Defendant’s duty of safety consideration is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the labor contract, and an employee bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that it does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129, May 16, 200). The Defendant is liable to compensate for damages inflicted on an employee by violating the duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da47129, May 16, 200). Comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, witness E, witness EF’s testimony, and fact inquiry with respect to the racing chief of the instant case, which was put into the Lemon