1. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant (Counterclaim) was assigned to both sides of the presses in the E workplace located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu C.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2006, the Plaintiff supplied one of the F presses machine (hereinafter “instant machine”) to E.

B. The instant machine has functioned at the same time in both hands and automatically stop once. While the machine stops, the operator has finished the necessary work by putting both hand in the machine, and then begins once again, once in two hands the operation location. Of the parts of the instant machine, the rash valves, among them, automatically shut down the valves by using electricity or pressure, etc., are the devices to control the operation or stop of the instant machine.

C. On May 3, 2012, E filed an application for A/S with the Plaintiff when noise was generated from the upper hedging part of the valves installed in the instant machine, and employees G of the Plaintiff Company visited E and inspected the instant machine, and found and replaced it more than the Jinnod valves.

(hereinafter referred to as the above, the valves installed after the replacement are referred to as the “instant valves”).

G was working in the instant machine by the Defendant, an employee E, after replacing the valve in this case and following the test operation. However, the Defendant’s hand was damaged by the hydrotension damage on both sides, 2, 3, and 4 resin open from each side of the instant machine, with the wind continuing to work without stopping even after the instant machine completed one-time operation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 1, 2, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since G accepted the instant machine is an employee of H, not the Plaintiff’s employee. The instant accident was caused by the instant valve that was made by “I”, and thus, there was no negligence on the Plaintiff regarding the instant accident. 2)