1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 14,659,469 to Plaintiff A, KRW 2,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Defendant D”)

Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) under employment by Defendant E

(2) On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff A was ordered to work at the construction site of the F apartment in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si. Defendant D was awarded a miscellaneous work among the above construction works by Defendant B. Plaintiff B was the wife of Plaintiff A; Plaintiff C was the Plaintiff’s person; Plaintiff A was the Plaintiff.) On February 26, 2016, after receiving Defendant D’s work instructions at the construction site of the above F apartment construction site, Plaintiff A was put in one rail rail for the installation of E/L rail ( approximately approximately 20 kmg) in two shoulders through the stairs H-I Ra of the 26th floor G G-dong at the site. While Plaintiff A was charged with a string pipe for the pelpe installed in the stairs, it was shocked that the Plaintiff was facing the Plaintiff’s left part by spreading the pipe and string the Plaintiff’s upper part.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident, in common, since they did not take such measures despite their duty of care to prevent safety accidents by removing and installing a speak pipe speak for supporting speak at the construction site, and they did not take such measures.

However, when transporting heavy objects at the construction site to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has a duty to ensure the safety of the Plaintiff by exercising due care so that the Plaintiff does not face with the facilities, and such violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of care was also the cause of the instant accident.

Therefore, for the fair apportionment of damages, the defendants' liability is limited to 70%.

2...