A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a daily worker, and was engaged in the removal work of the second floor toilet lives of the Ansan-dong Public Health Center, where the Plaintiff was performing. 2) On the same day, the Plaintiff was in an accident that fell into the floor when the Plaintiff was performing the work of removing the toilet lives during the process of removing the toilet lives.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff, as seen above, puts a ham, etc. work on the bridge, without a business assistant, the Plaintiff was not equipped with safety devices to prevent the fall of the Plaintiff, and there was no special safety education for the Plaintiff. [Grounds for recognition] There was no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 9 evidence (including all of the cases where a family number is available), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as an employer, has neglected his duty to maintain a working environment to prevent the plaintiff's employee from causing harm to life and body while on duty, and to protect the employee from occupational accidents despite his duty to protect the employee from occupational accidents, and it seems that the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability, however, is limited to the defendant's liability to 70% in consideration of the above negligence of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff's negligence was committed in spite of his/her duty of care to promote his/her safety in order to avoid falling, and such mistake appears to have influenced the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case.

(30%) The ratio of the plaintiff's fault is 2.2. It is stated in the separate statement of damages calculation.