The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to a claim for damages

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s employee who engages in the tegrology business with the name of “C,” and was injured by the Defendant’s order, i.e., the chest of the plehion of the part where the body of the Plaintiff was loaded in the truck on September 24, 2017 at the construction site of the first floor cafeteria of the building located in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 41,249,090, in total, KRW 29,366,470, KRW 1,882,620, KRW 10,000, KRW 41,249,090, and thus, the Defendant should pay the said money and the delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was merely a contract for the instant construction work, and that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee solely on the statement of the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2-2.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Meanwhile, in cases where a person who has been awarded a subcontract for a part of a construction work has reserved the right to direct and supervise the construction work, and where only the part of the construction work is subcontracted to the construction engineer, the relationship between the subcontractor and the subcontractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and the person to be employed. Therefore, the contractor bears the duty to adjust the physical environment and to take necessary measures so that the contractor does not harm the life, body, and health of the worker in the course of providing labor. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries of each of the above evidence alone are sufficient to establish that the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was established, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if the Defendant’s employment relationship with the Plaintiff regarding the instant construction works is recognized, it is against the physical accident suffered by the employee.