1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds for appeal by the defendant for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the defendant's assertion added or emphasized in the trial, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to the court of first instance, and even if the defendant bears the whole purport of the pleading on the evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including the numbers of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the defendant in the trial, the recognition of facts and the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant as the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion that the defendant added or emphasized in the trial.

2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since there was no negligence of the defendant in the occurrence of the accident of this case, and the accident of this case occurred due to the whole negligence of M, who was an employee of the defendant, and the plaintiff's work partner, the defendant is only liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the employer's liability. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability for damages due to the defendant's employer's liability has expired with the lapse of the three-year statute

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement of No. 5, while the plaintiff was engaged in the work of moving the iron plate, there was an accident of this case where the steel plate was cut, covered the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's left side bridge was placed on the steel board. When the plaintiff first puts on the steel board, it was not much different when the safety was worn on the steel board. However, it was a situation where the plaintiff was unable to move by the weight of the steel board. While M, who is the plaintiff's workplace rent, did not fix the steel board, the steel board was put on the steel board on the plaintiff's name, and the steel board that is not inconsistent with the weight was put on two occasions.