1. Defendant H: (a) with respect to KRW 9,181,818 and each of the said money to Plaintiff A, KRW 15,272,727, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 14:00 on March 19, 2015, the network I died of brain-dead and cerebral blood transfusion by falling to the right side and shocking down on the wall’s surface while performing the installation work of a crypted two-meter high in height from the third floor of the Seo-gu New Construction Site, Seo-gu, Gwangju, which is performed by J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Co., Ltd”).

(hereinafter, this case’s accident). (b)

The non-party company did not provide the work board to the network I, and the network I is presumed to have fallen and died while setting up another strhy on the wall with a rhythm rhymthy on the wall.

C. Defendant F is the representative director of the non-party company, Defendant G is the vice president, Defendant H is the field director, and the Plaintiffs are the wife and children of the above network I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 15, Eul 2 and 4 (including paper numbers), witness L's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An employer who has suffered liability for damages bears the duty of protection to devise necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so as not to harm life, body and health of an employee in the course of providing labor services.

Therefore, the non-party company is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident in this case, as the non-party company violated the duty to protect the non-party company despite the provision of work orders so that the deceasedI can work safely.

3. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant F is the representative director of J and the vice president of J who is the actual operator of J, and Defendant G is the employer of the deceased, and Defendant H is the head of the field office of J and bears the duty to protect the deceased as a person in charge of safety and health management.

Nevertheless, as the deceased died in violation of such duty of protection, the deceased is responsible for compensating for the loss caused thereby.

B. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is demanded against Defendant F and G, employs an employee as defined in the business owner.