A. On June 5, 2013, at around 02:25, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant Company’s B, tried to occupy the Defendant Company’s B, to attract internal air, open a valve connected to seal operation in a successive order, and occupy one rupture, while the Plaintiff had been working for large-scale painting at the Defendant Company’s factory. However, according to the previous system, the Plaintiff attempted to occupy the burner to have gas leaked in a state where multiple valves are opened, and to attach the burner to the seal.

After the lapse of time, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident of causing a fire due to explosion due to urban gas leaked during the above-mentioned hours, resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury by telegraph, video, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff was working alone, and the safety management officer of the defendant company was not assigned to the site, and the safety management officer failed to fully educate the workers, including the plaintiff, about the safe point of operation with seals, and failed to properly implement the work management supervision.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5, 6, 9 (including each number), Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor. In cases where an employee suffers damage by violating such duty of protection, the employer is liable to compensate for such damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6015, Mar. 10, 200; 99Da47129, May 16, 200); according to the above fact of recognition, the Defendant is large.