A. Basic facts 1) The Defendant is a company that performs a waterproof construction business. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and was in charge of cosing (fluoring in crebing in real containers, etc.), and the Plaintiff B’s wife, and the Plaintiff C’s child. 2) The Defendant was awarded a waterproof construction work on the Nanyang-Eup’s river glass roof located in Gyeongyang-si, Busan-si, and dispatched the Plaintiff A on April 17, 2012.

3) The roof was connected by a glass board on the scam (scam) column with a pipe pipe. While the Plaintiff was trying to get a scam on the roof of the scambed by the scam in the scam form, the glass board fells on the strong floor below about 10 meters of the wind, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a scambling of the scam executive scambling, a scam pressured scam, a scambroke, a scamscam, etc. (contested facts without any dispute over recognition, written statements, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 2-2, each video, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to take into account the safety of the plaintiff A, who is an employee, by preparing, wearing, or installing equipment, such as safety lines, trings, safety nets, etc., when the plaintiff's employer, who works at a place at a risk of falling A, is obligated to take into account the safety of the plaintiff A, but the plaintiff's failure to do so and caused the plaintiff to be injured due to an accident that causes the fall of the work, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damage caused thereby. 2) As to this, although the defendant recommended the plaintiff A to wear a safety rope and ordered the plaintiff not to work but to wait if there is no manager, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was an accident by itself. However, the witness D's testimony alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c).