The defendant shall have against the plaintiff A 131,392.

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is as follows in the third 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance: "The above camerar operated by Da. D is prohibited from using the Kacler for the purpose of lifting and transporting goods, and H did not wear safety labels, etc. while boarding the above Kaclers," and "as a result of fact inquiry into the head of the Daejeon regional headquarters of the Daejeon District Headquarters of the court of first instance" added "the result of fact inquiry into the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency of the court of first instance" to "the result of fact inquiry into the head of the Daejeon District Headquarters of the Daejeon District Headquarters of the court of first instance," and therefore, this part of the reasoning for the judgment is identical to that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the facts of the above recognition of the liability for damages, D is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the insurer of D, who are the plaintiffs of H and their family members, by ascertaining whether the above carcles and the Kacet are well fixed in the operation of the above carcles, even though they have a duty of care to prevent accidents, and neglecting this duty despite the fact that H and I have a duty of care to prevent accidents.

However, it is not a normal working method to carry out the work to fill up the burners connected to Hdo carcers, and it is not a normal working method, and it is necessary to take safety measures such as installing and wearing the safety labelling in the Bbeket, but it was involved in the instant accident while carrying out the work to board the Bbeket without taking any measures, and such H's error contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, it shall be taken into account, but it is reasonable to see H's negligence as 20% in comprehensive consideration of the circumstances and circumstances of the accident in this case.

For the convenience of calculating the scope of liability for damages, the period shall be calculated on a monthly basis.