1. Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court against Defendant C.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. 1) As seen earlier, the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence in the stairs of the third floor, where the Plaintiff was responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

B) We examine whether the instant accident was not installed in the stairs in which the instant accident occurred, and whether the instant accident occurred. The testimony by the witness E of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant accident was not installed in the said stairs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (as a result of each description in the evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Defendant B Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant B”) under the direction of correction from the competent labor office around March 4, 201, prior to the date of the instant accident, to the date of the instant accident, to install a safe watch on the external stairs.

[2] Furthermore, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3, part of testimony of witness E of the court of first instance as of October 24, 2017, see Articles 9-10 and 9-10, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the accident of this case was committed in the direction of the Plaintiff in the direction of vadididididididididi, which is beyond the installation location between the safety difficulties and can be acknowledged. If the safety difficulties are installed, it is not proven that the Plaintiff was vadidididididi, or that the said rail was varadidid due to the flight of stairs. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the safety cycle was not installed in the above stairs, or that there was a proximate causal relation with the occurrence of the accident of this case). Meanwhile, the accident of this case was not provided to the Plaintiff as seen earlier.