1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

All of the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. E is a person who has engaged in the removal business with the trade name of “F,” and the Plaintiff’s spouse, Plaintiff B, and C are children of E.

Defendant Eyph Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Eyph”) is a company that operates cryp franchise business, and Defendant Eyph is an indoor decoration business.

B. around April 2013, Defendant SDR supplied and received the interior decoration construction from Defendant Ethyde, which is located on the first floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant store”).

C. On May 1, 2013, E, with two daily workers employed by himself, dismantled the “H” signboard attached to the outside of the store of this case, and died of the signboard by falling down on the top of the wind, the upper upper booming of the signboard, which is set up, with the upper upper booming of the signboard, and breaking it into the signboard, with the dump reduction in volume due to the string heat in the part of the container.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] Dissatisfy, Gap’s 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 evidence, Eul’s 3, 4, Eul’s 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Majorly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants caused the instant accident in violation of the Rules on the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Industrial Safety Standards, and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by installing a solid structure bridge, by allowing the Defendants to wear protective outfits, such as a safety cap, when there is a danger of falling, and by working at a place exceeding 2 meters in height, in the event of a construction work at a place exceeding 2 meters.

In addition, even though the Defendants are business operators under the Occupational Safety and Health Act or constructors under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident and the reason for the death of E, there is causation between the Plaintiff’s above breach of duty and the instant accident.