A. Defendant B and C are employees of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), Defendant C received an order of liquefied petroleum gas (hereinafter “LPG”) from its customers as employees in charge of the business of selling liquefied petroleum gas, and deliver it to the delivery employee. Defendant B is a delivery employee who is a delivery employee and is in charge of the business of connecting LPG containers with the gas pipe with the customer’s residence and collecting the existing containers.

B. On January 9, 2018, at around 10:09, Defendant C sent the gas delivery order phone to G employee accommodation, without properly verifying the exact location, to Defendant B’s “G employee accommodation F,” and Defendant B sent the same building F (hereinafter “instant studio”) to the delivery site on the basis of the experience of gas delivery to G employee accommodation among the 4th floor buildings located in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, which had previously taken place. At around 1:00 on January 9, 2018, Defendant C sent the instant gas pipe to the gas pipe connected to the instant 1st floor parking site of the instant building.

C. From around 2014, J alone resided in the room of the instant case. However, since J separated a studio from indoor gas bags at the early stage of occupancy and removed an intermediate valve and did not install a studio, it leaked from the replaced container to the 16G 16.78km inside the room of the instant case.

At around 18:50 on January 9, 2018, J had an explosion by LPG, which was leaked to the original studio of this case (hereinafter “instant explosion accident”). Accordingly, the J sustained the injury, such as the heart 2 through 3 degrees image, etc. in 61% of the telegraph, M(Nppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp, and M(Nppppppppppppppppppppp).