(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as set out in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence 5-2.

1) On May 24, 2014, around 9:20 on May 24, 2014, the Plaintiff is the Sungnam-gu Subdivision Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

) On the site of painting construction, waterproofed the instant construction site. At the time, the floor of the instant construction site was a legacy due to strong paints, but Nonparty D, as Nonparty D was engaged in melting work in the vicinity, sprinked to the sponsing work, and the Plaintiff’s sponsed on the side of the Plaintiff’s bridge (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant contracted the instant construction from Nonparty Co., Ltd., and subcontracted the relevant construction work to Nonparty F’s “F” and then subcontracted the adjoining construction work to Nonparty G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

The Defendant had Nonparty H, an employee, direct and supervise the implementation of the construction at the construction site of this case.

B. In full view of the facts underlying the responsibility and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, Eul evidence No. 7-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 7-3, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant, through its employees, exercised the right of direction, supervision, supervision, encouragement, etc. as to the progress and method of the work of the instant construction. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was in a substantial employer’s position.

Therefore, the Defendant violated the duty of safety consideration or protection to take necessary measures in relation to the Plaintiff by properly directing and supervising the site so that the waterproof work does not occur simultaneously with the waterproof work using strong volatiles, but the Defendant violated the duty of safety consideration or protection to ensure that the waterproof work is safe in relation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s non-party I, the commercial person of D, should not perform the waterproof work during the waterproof work.