1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant 7,77,78 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively. 6,111.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A, focusing on E (the People’s Republic of China, hereinafter “the deceased”), is his wife and Plaintiff B and C are his children.

F is the owner who has built a multi-family house on the third floor scale in Jeju City G (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction site”), and the defendant is a person who has contracted F with F to manufacture a mold using a fry house and has employed the deceased as a part of a human body and performed the above mold construction work.

B. On April 10, 2015, the Deceased was found to have fallen on the floor at around 15:05 on the same day and died with the external scarcity due to second damage, etc. and died with H while conducting assembly work of 7.4 meters high from the outside of the building of 7.4 meters high from the second and third floors, which is installed between the second and third floors, to carry out the construction of the outer wall of the third floor at the instant construction site.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

F had I install an outer vision at the construction site of this case. At the time of the accident of this case, the rains installed on the outer wall of this case were installed at the time of the accident of this case, but only one middle rail was installed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-9 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41808, Jun. 26, 2008). According to the above facts, the defendant's appearance of outer walls of the building site of this case is limited.