1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 53,492,667 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from April 24, 2014 to July 24, 2015, respectively; and (b)

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The network D (hereinafter “the network”).

(2) On April 24, 2014, the Defendant Company was employed by the Defendant Company and worked as the Working Group for the Felling Work, and on April 24, 2014, on the part of the F Park in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the head of the Working Group for the Felling Work, the head of which was killed by covers the Deceased, with the large number of pine trees infected by pine wilt infections from Yansan to Yansan-gu, and the direction of the pine trees is changed, and the deceased was covered by the deceased’s head of the next pine trees (hereinafter

2) At the time of the instant accident, the Deceased did not wear safety shoes, and the person in general charge of safety and health was not at the site, and the G director, who actually served as the person in charge of safety, was engaged in other work at a distance of about 300 meters.

3) The plaintiffs are children of the deceased. [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 10, and Eul evidence No. 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

- 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, and is liable to compensate for damages inflicted on an employee by violating such duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 200; 99Da47129, May 16, 200). According to each of the above findings, according to each of the above findings, the defendant should dispatch a field manager to instruct and supervise work involving risks, such as the logging work, so that the work can be conducted safely, but the defendant did not dispatch the site manager or specifically direct and supervise the work, and the accident of this case occurred by this negligence. Thus, the defendant is caused by the accident of this case.