A. On June 17, 2016, the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was employed as a workman with respect to forest tending projects implemented by the Defendant (on June 19, 2016, KRW 180,000 per day) and carried out the work of growing green trees using a towing instruments (on June 19, 2016, with six other workmen, including G, from the slopes located in the F of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, she performed the work of growing green trees using a towing instruments so that green trees can grow well).

B. Around 12:50 on June 19, 2016, the Deceased was in excess of a slope, and there was an accident that cut off the left side of the knee-fele-fele-felon (on the left side of the knee-felon-felon-felon-felon abandonment).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

After being transferred from the scene of helicopter to the Chungcheongnam University Hospital, the Deceased died from a pactic shock show on March 31, 2017, and the Plaintiff B and C inherited each deceased, who is the deceased’s wife A, the deceased’s children, and C, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 13, 16 evidence (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Defendant may sustain an injury in the knife knife knife of the beginning of the towing, in the event that the center is lost while engaging in the operation of the towing machine in the slope of a sloping of responsibility (it cannot be deemed that the occurrence of the same accident is unforeseeable). As such, the Defendant is obliged to have the working person wear adequate protective outfits, supervise the situation where the workers wear protective outfits, conduct necessary safety education, etc. of the working workers.

However, the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 10, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in witness G testimony, namely, the defendant protects workmen, such as the deceased, from knee to knee.