The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On May 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, who was on the basis of the facts, was employed as a daily employee at a double-time employee’s family farm located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Defendant’s Sung-gun.

The plaintiff is placed on a bridge around 11:00 on the same day.

As a result, injury was suffered, such as the closure of trees requiring a stability for about seven weeks, due to the depression.

(hereinafter the above accident is referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was overworked on the bridge with the Defendant’s direction while entering the bridge, and the Defendant also recognized that the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to work on the bridge while communicating with the Plaintiff after the instant accident.

The defendant did not provide the plaintiff with sufficient education on the work using a bridge or assign a manager, and the accident of this case occurred with the wind that does not have a person to fix or catch the bridge without the floor level of the workplace. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case, which are the total amount of KRW 49,863,850, KRW 15,766,666, and KRW 5 million, KRW 500,000,000, KRW 70,630,510.

B. According to the statement No. 8-1 of the judgment of the court below, the overall purport of the statement made by the plaintiff and the defendant after the accident in this case is that "after the accident in this case, the plaintiff and the defendant talked that "I would like to go against the defendant, and I would like to go against the defendant," and it is difficult to say that the defendant was allowed to separately remove only some expressions during the defendant's speech and ordered the plaintiff to work on the bridge, and there is no evidence to prove that the accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff was working on the bridge in accordance with the defendant's instruction.

Rather, the statement No. 2, the witness D's testimony and pleading.