The Defendant, at around 15:30 on June 19, 2015, at the access road of the 1st underground floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 6 persons, such as victim F, etc., are placed above the PT in the ceiling, and the Defendant, as the Defendant, has a duty of care to prevent the fall accident by carefully examining whether the safety level was actually worn, in order to prevent the fall of the figures working in the upper airspace above the PT non-public sector, such as the victim, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without paying the safety level to the victim F, ordered the victim F F F to proceed with the virtue set on the PT non-line by negligence, ordering the victim FF to move the PT vision to avoid the floor threshold, and caused the victim who did not wear the safety level so that the victim would not wear the safety level set rapidly so as to avoid the floor threshold.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant, who was authorized to direct and supervise the victim at the construction site of the instant case, bears the duty to take safety measures against the victim.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, there is a statement that the Defendant, while being disadvantageous to the working party, has given some orders to other workers.

Even if the defendant has experience more than other workers and has excellent skills, he was in charge of leading other workers.