1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around January 19, 2007, the Plaintiff was constructed by B, and the Defendant Whiteel Construction was employed as a type of sculling hole at the construction site of sewage level. 2) The Plaintiff was engaged in drum work, flac work, and flabing work for the installation and dismantling of sculeries at the construction site.

3) On February 13, 2007, the Plaintiff saw a pain on the part of the fingers, arms, and shoulder, and received medical treatment on or around February 21, 2007. On the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical treatment against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service with the right side of the back-to-door, the upper part of the Plaintiff’s disease, the right side of the back-to-face and the back-side, the back-to-face and the backside of the back-to-face disease, and the handout of the hydropath-gun, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service recognized only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim for medical treatment, but accepted most of the Plaintiff’s allegations in the administrative litigation, and decided to approve medical treatment for most of the

5) On March 6, 2007, from around December 25, 2007 to around December 25, 2007, the Plaintiff received insurance benefits in total of KRW 15,720,890 of temporary layoff benefits and KRW 22,117,140 of the medical care benefits and KRW 6,396,250 of the medical care benefits during the above period. At the time, the Plaintiff was employed in the vecel Construction Co., Ltd., and was employed in the vecel Construction, and dismantled work at around 4m to 4.5m under the direction of the said company.

7) Defendant veel Construction, Inc., ordered the Plaintiff to cancel a crypt before it was completely cultivated due to the lack of 7 to 10 days from the strawing of concrete in front of the air, and did not take into account the safety of the Plaintiff, which had been engaged in dismantling the crypt, as seen above. 8) At the time of dismantling the crypt, the Plaintiff was at a height of at least 5 meters of the crypt to be dismantled by the Plaintiff, and thus, the cveel Construction was installed with the crypt BT sign for the safe dismantling of the crypt, but instead of installing the above crypt, temporary wooden launch plate at a height of approximately 2 meters has