However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

B A is a person who operates H P P P Pyeongtaek located in Pyeongtaek-si G, and Defendant A is a person who performs work, such as installing a gas park, under the direction of the work from the above B.

Defendant

B On September 9, 2013, the first agreed to install an electric ionher to the effect that “the change to the electric ionr occurs because the gas ionr used in the discharge station has been broken,” and that “the electric ionr was ordered to be replaced to the electric ionr,” and the second agreed to install the electric ionr in the price of KRW 2.80,000,000,000

In such a case, Defendant B had a duty of care to prevent accidents due to ordering an expert who is qualified to handle high-pressure gas to remove gas facilities. However, on September 10, 2013, Defendant B ordered to pay KRW 80,000 per day to Defendant A, who is not qualified to handle high-pressure gas, and ordered to remove the gas ion source of the gas and install the electric ion source of the gas in Pyeongtaek-siJ. While the removal of the gas ion source was conducted, Defendant B did not exercise a duty of care to take measures such as gas blocking and connection removal in the above Plaintiff’s removal of the gas ion source. Defendant A was at the time divided into two gas ioners connected to the above KG gas facilities, supplied one gas ion machine with one gas ion, supplied one gas ion machine, supplied one gas ion from 0,000 to 10,000,000 from 10,000,000 from 3G from 0,000 to 1,000.