1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The third 5-8 parallels are as follows.

D. The victim was paid KRW 15,233,740 for the industrial accident of this case by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

E. The Plaintiff evaluated the fault of the victim as 10% pursuant to the above employer liability insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and calculated the basic insurance amount for the victim after March 2, 2015 calculated the victim’s injury income of KRW 93,220,650 ( KRW 103,578,500 x 90%) from March 2, 2015, KRW 2,286,00 ( KRW 2,540,000 x 90 x 13,536,000 x 109,536,000 x 109,042,650 x 15,233,740 x 93,808,910 x 109,042,650 - 15,233,740 x 2015,300 insurance money, etc. of the victim.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, part of Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, testimony of the first instance court witness F, fact inquiry results with respect to the branch offices of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above underlying facts, the instant accident is caused by the Defendant’s negligence, despite the duty to provide safety education to workers and to safely supervise the work site through the manager in preparation for the inflow of electric currents in the communications station, while neglecting the duty to safely supervise the work site, and managing the clothing of electric wires with the flow of high-tension and high-tension electric currents of the non-party company that issued a work instruction so as not to be damaged, and the Defendant’s negligence, even though the duty to take protective measures to ensure the distance between the communications station and the electric cable, has been neglected to prevent the electric shock accident.