1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates construction machinery rental business. The Defendants jointly operate the “D” of a company that operates construction machinery rental business. The Defendants, as their husband and wife, comprehensively considered the record of the evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings as to witness F’s testimony, as follows: (i) Defendants are married couple; (ii) Defendants C are registered as their husband and wife; (iii) Defendant B was directly engaged in all activities related to the instant accident; and (iv) Defendant B was issued a summary order due to the instant accident as the real owner; and (iii) Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant C independently operated the instant accident is not acceptable in light of the fact that the summary order was issued, etc. on October 201, 201.

Upon the termination of the above lease agreement with the Pacific Development Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendants for the decommissioning of the instant workshop.

3) On May 12, 2013, the Plaintiff’s employee Ha and the Plaintiff’s employee Ha were one team employed by the Defendants, J, K, L, M, and Defendant B, which was a field manager, and the Plaintiff’s employee Ha and the Plaintiff’s employee Ha were collapsed (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(B) Death with K and L, and the J, M, and I suffered injury. B. The circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident are as follows: (i) The instant accident is the type of mast, 8.85 meters higher than 4.14 meters higher than the basic mast and 8.85 meters higher than the columns, and (ii) the telescopage and mast.