A. The facts of recognition (1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) contracted to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) with the construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction of the D Apartment-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D apartment, and the Plaintiff was a daily employed worker who belongs to Defendant B (from November 2, 2015 to December 31, 2016).

(2) On November 1, 2016, at the construction site of this case around 13:45, the Plaintiff suffered damage to the Plaintiff’s left part of the upper part of the upper part of the ground, such as a high-rise apartment complex, by means of a large marg, combined with the installation and dismantling of a marg, and a large marg, installed to safely carry out the installation and dismantling of an outer wall marg, and the follow-up marg, with the exception of the external wall marging part of the pit, such as a high-rise apartment (hereinafter “instant accident”), while dismantling a marg connected with a mar line and a nonline.

On the other hand, at the time of the accident, the measures to prevent Dograe from spreading were installed at one location.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 4, witness E's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) Whether Defendant B’s liability is established or not, as the Plaintiff’s employer, Defendant B is obligated to take safety consideration incidental to the labor contract, such as providing the Plaintiff with an environment for safe work, such as the prevention of electric power failure, etc. in the course of dismantling the Dom frame.

Therefore, the accident of this case occurred due to the failure or negligence of this case.

I would like to say.

(2) Whether Defendant C’s liability is established (A) The Plaintiff’s assertion is provided for in Articles 18 and 29 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act.