A. On October 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) around 17:00 on October 11, 2014, the construction site of the Dongha City Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the Plaintiff, at the first floor of the hotel department of Suwon-do, which is a construction site, Yando Lan City Development Co., Ltd., coming up, while getting on a bridge for the electric vessel operation; and (c) the right is left behind between the surface of the bridge; and (d) caused the instant accident, such as the instant accident, by cutting down the right frame and the right shouldering (hereinafter referred

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a contract for the deduction of workers’ disaster with the Tti Development Co., Ltd.

3) The above worker disaster mutual-aid contract aims to ensure that the work site workers and office workers work at all the business places of the East City Development Company were workers employed by the East City Development Company at the time of the instant accident, whereas the defendant asserts that the East City Development Corporation did not employ the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In addition to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (including paper numbers) and arguments in the grounds for recognition as to whether the plaintiff was a worker of the East City, the plaintiff was found to have suffered the accident of this case under his employment in the East City. The results of the fact inquiry about the chief director of the Labor Welfare Corporation and the chief of the Guro District Tax Office of this court are insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

다. 책임의 제한 다만 앞서 든 인정근거에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 사다리에는 특별한 하자가 없었던 점, 원고 자신의 부주의로 발을 헛디뎠던 점을 인정할 수 있고, 이러한 점에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 사고로 인한 책임을 모두 피고에게 돌리는 것은 공평하지 아니하다

Therefore, the defendant's responsibility is shown.