However, each of the above cases against the defendants for two years from the date of the final conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

A is a person engaged in the affairs of controlling and managing the safety and health of the construction site as a site manager of the “F Co., Ltd.” that proceeds from the “E construction” in Gyeonggi-doHanam-si, and Defendant B is an employee of the “F Co., Ltd.” and is engaged in supervising the installation of systems in the above site.

Defendant

B around 07:40 on July 29, 2016, around 07:0, the victim G (56) who transported “system non-line pipeline” at the above construction site, played a signalling role to load and unload the system non-line pipe upon arrival of the H-business truck operated by the victim G (56). In order to load and unload the above system, the victim, who was the driver, laid down the above vehicle, opened the driver to load the left side of the cargo vehicle and opened the cargo onto the left side of the cargo vehicle, and dismantled the Belgium.

In such a case, Defendant A was a manager in charge of the safety and health of the above construction site. Defendant A had a duty of care to instruct safety rules, such as “to check and start loading and unloading of chemical articles, to prevent access to the surrounding work sites,” etc. Defendant B, a supervisor in charge of managing loading and unloading work, and Defendant B had a duty of care to prevent accidents by checking whether there is no risk of falling on the cargo loaded before loading and unloading, and by viewing that there is no danger of falling on the cargo loaded before loading and unloading, and preventing access to the cargo by any person other than the relevant workers during loading and unloading.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not take any measures against the risk of the decline of the cargo in breach of the duty of care as above and had the victim of the cause of the operation fixed the cargo.