2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 80% is assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

On October 7, 2014, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was an employee of the Defendant company, who attempted suicide in the ○○ apartment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) and died on November 7, 2014, and died on November 7, 201. Plaintiff 1 is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3.

The defendant company is a managing body of the apartment of this case as a business of building management.

B. Details of the instant case

1) On September 23, 2013, the Deceased joined the Defendant Company as a security guard and served in the outer portrait, and was placed in the △△dong of the instant apartment on January 1, 2014, based on the first half-time regular personnel, and was transferred to △dong as of July 1, 2014.

2) The Dogggdong was well known as a place where security guards are forced to evade their duties due to the harassment against the security guards of Nonparty 2 (1) residents living in the Doggdong, but the deceased, since his placement in Doggdong, took an excessive quantity of flags and abusives in the open place from Nonparty 2 through doping, and had a variety of instances where the deceased flag’s personal maternity and stress were experienced, such as flaging food that has expired.

3) On August 18, 2014, the Deceased began to perform pharmacologic treatment upon receiving the diagnosis of “serious fluorite fluorite fluorite,” and on September 13, 2014, the Deceased’s head of the guard team requested Nonparty 3, who was the deceased, to grant the sick’s permission by saying, “I would have to undergo severe stress due to Nonparty 2’s severe residual stress, and you would have to move his job to the external post,” but Nonparty 3 did not accept the Plaintiff’s request by saying, “I would have to undergo a recommendation post if I would be urgent and difficult.”

4) On October 7, 2014, the Deceased, on the day of the accident, went through a serious 30 minutes from Nonparty 2 to 30 minutes, prepared a note, and then, 09:20 on the same day, the Deceased was fluored into his body with his body and molecule with his body in the vehicle of the residents living in △△dong-dong, and died after being sent back to the hospital for treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”). On November 7, 2014, the Deceased died after being given treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”). < Amended by Act No. 1293, Nov. 7, 2014>

5) On November 28, 2014, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident on the grounds that the Deceased caused excessive occupational stress due to serious conflict with the occupants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 9, 10, 12 through 14, 16 through 18, 20, 26, 28 through 32 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of the testimony by the witness, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the non-party 4

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The Defendant Company violated the personnel movement provision on the ground that the deceased did not pay a superior, and transferred the deceased to △ Magdong, and continuously abused Nonparty 2, a resident living in △ Magdong, etc. The deceased’s suicide due to stress. As such, the Defendant Company failed to perform his duty to protect the deceased as an employer. Accordingly, the Defendant Company is obliged to pay the deceased and the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the purport of the claim as consolation money.

B. Defendant Company

The transfer measure against the deceased was a justifiable measure in accordance with the changed personnel principle. Since the accident of this case does not constitute an unexpected or unexpected accident, the claim for damages by the plaintiffs on the premise of violating the duty to protect the defendant company is without merit.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Whether the measures for the transfer of the deceased were unlawful and unfair

First of all, the plaintiffs asserted that the deceased was unfairly transferred on the ground that he did not pay the deceased's superior. However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 18-2, Gap evidence No. 21-24, and No. 31 existed among the security guards of the apartment of this case, and further, it is insufficient to conclude that the plaintiff was transferred to Dol Agreement on the ground that the deceased did not pay the deceased's superior, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Next, the plaintiffs asserted that the transfer measures of the deceased was against the existing personnel movement principles that combine the work place in the order of "Febken 14" and "B 1 and B 2" with respect to the security guards who worked for two years in each Dong, even though they did not take the transfer measures on the ground that they did not pay the deceased. However, in the following circumstances, the tenant representative meeting of the apartment house of this case decided to change the personnel principles that allow the head of the management office to take the transfer measures, i.e., if the civil petition of the security guards is filed on or around June 25, 2014, the head of the management office applied the changed personnel principles from the personnel movement on July 1, 2014 to the △△△△△△△△△, which had been changed on July 9, 2014, and that the change in the personnel management principles and the procedure of the deceased's transfer was invalid.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the transfer measures against the deceased are illegal and unjust.

2) Whether the deceased failed to perform his/her duty to protect the deceased

An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm his/her life, body, or health during the course of providing his/her labor service, and is liable for compensating for damages to an employee by violating such duty (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082, Feb. 23, 199, etc.).

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire arguments, are returned to the instant case, health class, and the entire purport of the arguments, i.e., (i) the deceased was subject to severe mental stress during his work in Dogdong, (ii) the deceased’s depression caused the above stress, and appears to have worse, and (iii) the deceased was widely known as the place of his duty evasion due to excessive harassment against the security guards, and the defendant company seems to have been aware of such circumstances. As such, the defendant company had a need to take more careful measures against the problems of the deceased working in his job evasion area, and (iv) the deceased company requested to move to the workplace because the deceased was under excessive stress due to Nonparty 2, but Nonparty 3 recommended resignation of the deceased, rather than taking active protective measures, and (iv) the non-party 3 violated the deceased’s duty of care to protect the deceased’s employees, and thus, the defendant company did not take adequate measures against the deceased’s breach of duty of care, such as breach of duty of care.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Consolation money

Although it is found that the deceased was suffering from mental harm caused by Nonparty 2’s harassment, the deceased’s wrong conduct of suicide cannot be seen out, and even before joining the Defendant company, the deceased’s mental health and treatment could have been conducted even before entering the Defendant company and the quality of the deceased vulnerable to stress appears to have caused the instant accident. In addition, consolation money shall be determined as KRW 15 million, KRW 15 million, KRW 15 million, Plaintiff 2, and KRW 2.5 million, respectively, by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument in the instant case, including the deceased’s age, family relation, background of the occurrence of the accident, and other circumstances.

(ii) inheritance;

Plaintiff 1: 6,428,571 won (=the consolation money of the deceased 15 million won x 3/7)

Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3: Each KRW 4,285,714 (=the consolation money of the Deceased KRW 15 million x 2/7)

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 7, 2014 to March 10, 2017, which is the date of this decision where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendant company to pay to the plaintiff 1 (i.e., inheritance consolation money of KRW 6,428,571 + KRW 5 million per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment). The plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of recognition, and they accept them within the scope of recognition, and the remainder of them are dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges Seo-wing

1) As to the above non-party 2 who was the co-defendant of the instant lawsuit, a compulsory adjustment decision was rendered to the effect that “the non-party 2 paid KRW 25 million to Plaintiff 1” was affirmed.