1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract to C for repair works for water tanks in the Defendant Company in KRW 50,000.

B. On June 13, 2015, C employed the Plaintiff, who is a daily worker, and carried out water tank repair and maintenance works in the Defendant Company. In the process, the instant accident occurred where the Plaintiff, while cutting the water tank using a concrete string machine, resulting in the malfunction of the above female string machine, resulting in the injury of the 1st left fluor of the 1st left fluor.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. While the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant, sustained an injury due to the instant accident while performing water tank repair work. In such a case, the Defendant, as an employer, was obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so as not to harm the life, body, and health of employees in the course of providing labor, but at the time of the instant accident, did not provide the Plaintiff with safety equipment, such as cutting protective beds, safety caps, and safety shoes. Moreover, during the concrete cutting work, a large amount of dust occurs, the Plaintiff did not take such measures even though the Plaintiff was able to sufficiently secure the view by connecting water pipes for removing dust, and did not take necessary measures, such as clarifying lighting. The Defendant did not fulfill its duty of care for safety as an employer.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. First of all, according to the records of evidence No. 3 as to whether the Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a daily employment contract as of June 12, 2015.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 8 and Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the defendant shall be the defendant.