1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 8 and 9:

The Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant company from March 4, 2013 to work as an electrical device installer and a maintenance worker.

B. Defendant Company B, the construction site of Defendant Company, around 2008, is Gyeonggi-do, the construction site of Defendant Company. (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

In order to use the temporary electricity in the above place, the seizure before and before the seizure (hereinafter referred to as “the seizure before the seizure of the instant case”).

(2) The Defendant Company filed an application for the termination of the electricity use contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation around September 24, 2008, as the construction of the instant construction site was suspended, and filed an application for the termination of the electricity use contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation around September 26, 2008 and prevented the flow of electricity by returning the electric measuring instruments to the Korea Electric Power Corporation around the 26th of the same month.

3) As the Defendant Company again needed to use the temporary electricity at the instant construction site, around April 5, 2013, the Defendant Company submitted to the Korea Electric Power Corporation an application for electric use to the Korea Electric Power Corporation on April 10, 2013, the previous inspection institution, the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation, the previous inspection institution, and the previous electrical construction company as of April 10, 2013, and the previous electrical construction company as the previous inspection. (c) The occurrence of the instant accident; (e) the Defendant Company ordered the Plaintiff to perform the preparation work to undergo the pre-use inspection from the Korea Electric Safety Corporation for the installation of facilities installed before the instant high power seizure.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was asked by telephone to the Korea Electric Power Corporation and responded to the purport that the instant high seizure prior to the instant high seizure was in a state of blocking electricity since it had already been reported four years prior to the closure. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff inside the instant high seizure prior to the instant high seizure.