1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company and engaged in the removal work of the Astrop cable pipelines, and caused physical accidents due to the defendant's negligence, such as (i) failure to pay the safety level mark; (ii) failure to install the bridge for boarding lectures; (iii) the safety bridge; and (iv) provision of the work engine for high places; and (v) failure to perform the work at the construction site; and (iv) failure to perform the work at the construction site; and (v) thus, the defendant, the employer, is liable to compensate the plaintiff, who is an employee, for property damage and mental distress caused by the above accident.

2. In order to impose tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act against physical accidents suffered by an employer who is obligated to protect an employee, as incidental duties to the principle of good faith accompanying a labor contract as to whether to prove negligence, it is recognized that the employer was negligent in failing to take any particular safety measures for avoidance despite the fact that he knew or could have known that physical accidents caused by the relevant work could occur, and the existence of such negligence is the burden of proof for the employee who claimed compensation for damages.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da60115, Mar. 10, 200). With respect to this case, as evidence consistent with the assertion that there was negligence on the Defendant, there were 11 statements (the safety level was not received, the safety level was not installed in the PTAcc, and the safety distress was not installed in the PTAcc.). However, during the work, there was a description in B and B’s image, which were recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the video in B and B’s image in B, and the circumstances that could be known therefrom, namely, ① as a document in which the Plaintiff’s signature was entered, the document stating that “A, although the Plaintiff weared the safety level at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff did not conclude that safety level was not concluded.”