1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2010, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) employed the Plaintiff and his birth, and had the Plaintiff work at the site of Gwangju Dong-gu E Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”). Defendant B, a child of F, agreed to drive the instant construction vehicle by leasing G accusation work vehicle (hereinafter “instant work”) from F.

On the other hand, Defendant C, an employee of the Defendant Company, was in charge of supervision and safety management at the construction site of this case.

B. Defendant B, at the instant construction site on May 27, 2010, boarded the Plaintiff and H on the boarding box (scale: 320cm in length, 120cm in length, 150cm in height, 150cm in height) of the instant work vehicle, and moved the instant work vehicle according to the Plaintiff and H’s new name. The Plaintiff and H conducted the instant work by means of removing saves with the saves by a shift while boarding the instant work vehicle (hereinafter “instant work”).

2) However, around the construction site of the instant case, the high voltage lines of 13,200 V, consisting of two high voltage lines installed at intervals of 3 meters, and the instant work was conducted by passing through the instant work with high voltage lines with two high voltage lines. In the case of high voltage lines, the appearance alone differs from the general electric wires due to the difference between the overall height of electric wires and telegraph lines or the thickness of electric wires. In the case of high voltage lines, even if the clothes are not cut off, the risk of accidents, such as reduction, etc., is high, and thus, it was possible to ensure safety only when construction works should be carried out after installing a construction embankment at the high voltage lines upon request of the Korea Electric Power Corporation in advance.

3. However, C, who supervised the instant construction, neglects the duty to take safety measures, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with the instant construction without taking any particular measure.