1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,822,438 as well as 5% per annum from August 7, 2013 to March 13, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고는 토목건축공사업, 철강재 설치 공사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인이고, 원고는 피고에게 고용된 근로자이다.

B. On August 7, 2013, at around 10:15, the Plaintiff, at the site of Cwork performed by the Defendant located in the plane captain B, engaged in the work of installing ethyl luging (i.e., iron in the shape of a string used as a lid, etc. of a drainage hole) on the opening part of the opening part of the first floor underground (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and the Plaintiff was in the event of falling the floor below approximately 3.5 meters, while the instant construction work was conducted on the top of the opening part of the first floor below the ground level from the first floor to the second floor below the second floor above the underground level.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the high-frequency on the left-hand side, the left-hand pelle pelle, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An employer who has incurred liability for damages, as an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, bears the duty to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, and health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages sustained by an employee by violating such duty of protection;

(See Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on May 16, 200). In light of the above facts, when allowing the plaintiff to carry out the operation of the opening of the opening of the first floor above the ground floor, the defendant shall choose a safe working method so as not to fall through the opening of the opening, have the work worker carry out the operation with the safety equipment, and conduct the safety education, etc. thoroughly, so the accident in this case occurred due to the failure to take such safety measures. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have caused the accident in this case.