1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion is as shown in the annexed sheet of claim.

2. In a case where a claim for damages is filed due to a breach of the duty of protection on the market, the obligor cannot be exempted from liability unless it proves or prove that the obligor was not negligent in the performance of his/her duty, such as the nonperformance of the duty of protection. However, the obligee also bears the burden of proving the incomplete performance and the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da43590, Jan. 28, 1994). As an incidental duty to the principle of good faith attached to a labor contract, the Plaintiff must assert and prove the existence of a specific duty of protection and the violation thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da43590, Jan. 28, 1994). In order to impose tort liability on physical accidents suffered by the employee, the employer who bears the duty of protection on the worker, as an incidental duty to the principle of good faith, was aware or could have known that the physical accidents caused by his/her work, and the existence of such

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s duty to protect the victims of the instant accident was breached, and the Defendant’s duty to protect the victims of the instant accident was breached, and the Defendant’s duty to protect the victims of the instant accident was not fulfilled.

In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that C (State) provided the Plaintiff with the instant bridge, and that there was a defect in the instant bridge.

Therefore, the existence of specific duty of protection, the claim for damages caused by nonperformance, and the claim for damages caused by tort based on the defendant's negligence is without merit.

3. Conclusion.