1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the victim of the instant accident as follows. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s employer B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

B) On April 14, 201, 201, the Plaintiff, E, and D, etc. (hereinafter “instant work”) performed the work of installing and transmitting new wires at the site of the construction of new electric wires at the Gmyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-si, the Gmyeong-gun, the Gmyeong-gun, and the construction of new electric wires at the pre-construction site (hereinafter “instant work”) where B is liable for damages due to an industrial accident caused by his employee’s industrial accident.

3) The instant work was conducted in the order of removal of the existing poles and electric wires by connecting the electric wires to the existing poles after the electric poles were newly set up, connecting the electric wires with the electric poles, and connecting the new electric wires to the existing poles. The Plaintiff was in charge of installing and connecting the new electric wires at the earlier stage to the new poles. E was listed on the existing poles where the voltage of 22,905 flows to the electric wires with the flow of electricity, and was in charge of installing and connecting the new electric wires to the existing poles, and passing through the new electric wires with the air with the flow of electricity. 4) E was in charge of performing the duty of protecting the electric wires by putting the new electric wires on work in order to prepare for the work in advance, and became in contact with the existing poles, such as 5 meters away from the existing electric wires, and 5 meters away from both sides, and 5 meters away from the left-hand edge of the said electric wires.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 5 At the time of the instant accident, the site manager D, who supervised the instant work, was in a locking state to resolve a civil petition against traffic control, and the Plaintiff did not wear the front-down armed rioter.