A. Defendant Treatment Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Treatment Shipbuilding”) contracted the part of the vessel’s drawing to Defendant Tae Young-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Tae Young-gu”) with the company established for the construction, repair, etc. of the vessel.

B. At around 16:50 on July 14, 2014, Plaintiff A (hereinafter only referred to as Plaintiff A’s children, and Plaintiff B’s children) was involved in an accident that the said Plaintiff, which was placed on the floor of the 3370-meter 7 meters high from the total height of 3rd, was put in the process of referring to the photograph No. 7 of the mobile-style visa No. 7, equivalent to the total height of 3rd, in order to carry out painting work at the work site located in the 3370 (Adong-dong), according to the 16:50 on July 14, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff received KRW 117,847,510 of temporary layoff benefits from Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and KRW 97,081,560 of medical care benefits, due to the injury, such as the impairment of the left-hand level of satisfaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2, 4, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Dae Young Park

A. An employer of liability for damages, as an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable for compensating for damages sustained by an employee by violating such duty of protection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da4488 delivered on May 16, 200). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant Dae Young-gu had a duty to maintain and manage the mobile system, which is a work facility, in advance, when investing the Plaintiff in work, despite the fact that it had a duty to maintain and manage the mobile system in a safe state.