A. In fact, the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a daily worker on November 6, 2013 and worked at the site of the drainage improvement project in the zone B in Kimhae-si, was injured by the Plaintiff, such as the fall of the floor above the wall and the right-side alleys, and pressure duplicing down the floor, while moving above the wall of about 50 to 60cm in height, in order to install a shooting bridge on the drainage ground of 8.5 meters high.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As incidental obligations under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor. In cases where an employee suffers damage by violating such duty of protection, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 2000; 99Da47129, May 16, 200). According to each of the above findings, according to each of the above facts, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to negligence that caused the Plaintiff to perform his/her work at a place with a high risk of falling, while having the Plaintiff perform the work at a place without any particular reason, despite being negligent in doing so. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

As to this, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction and soil construction among civil engineering works for drainage improvement projects in the zone B in Kimhae-si, which the Defendant was awarded a contract, to the Non-Party Newdo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Newdo Construction”), and the Plaintiff was employed by the Plaintiff, who was ordered by the new provincial construction, to perform the work at the site of this case.