1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C Co., Ltd., and the amounting to 64,057,500 won and the amount pertaining thereto, from January 21, 2019 to November 11, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2019, Defendant C Co., Ltd subcontracted Defendant C Co., Ltd. a specialized design construction among the E-Newly constructed apartment construction works in the wife population, which was ordered by D Co., Ltd. to Defendant C Co., Ltd.

B. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. and worked on the said site as a painting.

C. On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) was going on the sprink on the sprink on the sprink on the sprink on the outside stairs.

However, since the fixed fin of a bridge was not concluded properly, it became a fixed 1:10 pin, and the upper part of a bridge was laid down at around 11:10, and the plaintiff fell.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered injury, such as the 3th century emission frame.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings (written evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to reverse the fact of labor contract).

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. Article 24 of the Rules on Standards for Industrial Safety and Health Concerning the Occurrence of Liability for Damages only stipulates that a bridge shall be a passage, and Article 42 of the same Rule imposes an obligation on an employer to install a work board by means of assembling a vision, etc. in a case where it is apprehended that a worker might be at the time of carrying out work at a place where the worker might fall or fall down.

Accordingly, even in accordance with the guidelines for the safety of a mobile bridge prepared by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the contact-raising bridge used at the time of the accident in this case is to be used only at a narrow place where it is difficult to install such as cultivation business, accusation work, etc.

It is determined that the Plaintiff’s stone-spamping work is not a farming business that is likely to be listed on a sprinking bridge. Although Defendant B is required to install a work plate, the instant accident occurred while allowing the Plaintiff to do the stone-spamping work on the sprinking bridge.