1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2012, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Party Company B”)’s worker B suffered electric images (22,70kws) from the inner, double, both sides, both sides, and both sides of a company (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant accident”) at the site of remodeling works for D Hotels in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) at around 08:30, in order to cut electric wires to the string the string of the transformers (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant work”). As a result, the instant accident was carried out 1, 1,5 parts of the crime, 5 parts of the right-hand balance, 5 parts of the right-hand line, 5 parts of the strings, and 5 parts of the strings.

B. The Plaintiff is a domestic worker's accident insurance contract between the non-party company and the non-party company E (hereinafter referred to as the "insured").

(3) On July 5, 2013, the insured party paid 300 million won (the amount of damages calculated by the Plaintiff’s negligence 30% exceeds 300 million won per person’s compensation under the insurance contract, as the amount exceeds 300 million won, even if the amount of damages calculated by the Plaintiff’s negligence 30% is deducted from the industrial accident insurance money paid by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service) to B due to the instant accident.

C. The non-party company was receiving sewage from E to be supplied with remodeling construction of the building from the owner F of the instant building, and the Defendant is the supplier of the instant building under the electricity use contract between F and F.

[Ground of recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul's evidence 5-1 to 3, Eul's evidence 19, Eul's evidence 21-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the head of E on-Site G requested the Defendant to take a high voltage electric power circuit prior to the instant work, the Defendant failed to provide accurate explanation on the negligence and the electric power circuit work for the instant building without properly performing the electric power circuit work.