1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person operating D’s mutual business, and the Plaintiff is a person who, according to a labor contract with the Defendant, moved in the lodging house provided by the Defendant from September 3, 2012 to assist the Defendant’s workplace (a person who connects the pipes, etc. on a ship).

B. On October 20, 2012, while working at the Defendant’s place of business on the same day, the Plaintiff was subject to assault (hereinafter “the instant assault”) that shaking boomsing the Defendant’s bath and breath relating to the extension of use from other employees E on two occasions on the same day, around 13:20 and around 13:27.

(E) The foregoing assault was charged by the Gwangju District Court 2013 Godan60 and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 on September 12, 2013.

At around 18:10 on October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff lost his own consciousness while eating at the cafeteria of the foregoing D (hereinafter “instant accident”), was diagnosed by self-cerebral cerebral cerebrovascular in F Hospital, etc., and was diagnosed by F Hospital on the same day, and received astronomical and brain / mathal / mathal mathal surgery on the same day, and was transferred to G Hospital on October 31, 2012. However, the Plaintiff was transferred to G Hospital on November 2, 2012, but currently was in the state of decline, lectures, and anti-maration.

In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed an application for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the president of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service branch rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on February 10, 2014, but the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication thereon, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 10, and the result of the court’s commission of physical appraisal to G Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff responsible for nonperformance of the duty to protect the defendant's employer is not only the defendant's workplace but also the relation between the defendant's workplace and the defendant's workplace.