1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added to this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[However, Codefendant C Codefendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) in the first instance trial

The part concerning the contract or instruction of the construction of this case is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant actually managed the contractor by directly directing, supervising, and reading the operation and execution of the construction of this case at the construction site of this case only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was grossly negligent in the contract or instruction of the construction of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant who is liable for employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act or the obligation of the contractor under the proviso of Article 757 of the

2. Additional Parts

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a business owner who entered into a contract with C, and the Defendant bears the duty of safety consideration or the duty of protection pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, but the instant accident occurred due to such violation, and thus, the Defendant is liable for tort under Article 7

B. Although Article 29(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act imposes a duty of safety consideration on a business owner, such as a business that gives a contract by separating part of the business, etc., but in the case of the accident of this case, since the accident of this case only occurred due to conflict with the pumps at the site of the construction of this case managed by C and the industrial accident of this case, such as the replacement of workers, etc., is not immediately applicable to the above provision, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contractor has a duty of care to take safety measures to prevent the accident of this case.

Therefore, the Civil Code is applicable to the defendant.