A. On May 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to remove old news reporting block by inserting it into news reporting block replacement work.

On the same day, the removal and rearrangement work of street roots using sckes was almost conducted at the same time with almost all the above works, and around 11th of the same day, the plaintiff was placed on the wind covering the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was placed on the wind covering the plaintiff, and was placed on the upper right-hand side of the 11st chest confluor, the 12 chest pressure confluor, and the 12th century.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 23,849,100 for disability benefits due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the recognition of the above liability for damages, the defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, is engaged in the work of using sckeers and removing the roots of street trees for construction. Thus, it is necessary to create a safe working environment by installing safety devices to prevent sckes or maintaining a sufficient working distance with other workers such as the plaintiff, and to ensure that workers do not faithfully engage in the work by providing safety education to workers. However, the defendant neglected the above duty of care and caused the plaintiff, who is his employee, to do so.

As such, the plaintiff is responsible for compensating for damages caused by the accident of this case.

However, the plaintiff is also negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care to ensure his/her own safety by paying due attention to work, and the plaintiff's negligence also seems to have caused the occurrence and expansion of damages. Therefore, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 70% in consideration of these circumstances.

3. An annex other than those specifically stated below within the scope of liability for damages.