1. The Defendant: KRW 6,00,000 for the Plaintiff A; KRW 1,50,000 for the Plaintiff B; and KRW 500,00 for the Plaintiff C, D, and E, respectively.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in combination with Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-1-4, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-3, witness F, G, and H's testimony. A. The facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.

The defendant is a business operator with the purpose of creative construction business, steel product construction business, water supply and drainage facility construction business, aesthetic waterproof construction business, construction work business, etc., and the construction work for installing toilets in I University building was contracted and executed.

B. The Defendant awarded a subcontract to H for the installation of a water pipeline among the above toilet installation works, and H employed the Plaintiff and ordered the Plaintiff A to perform the construction of a water pipeline connecting the above installation works (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On February 26, 2011, Plaintiff A performed the instant construction. In order to perform the instant construction, Plaintiff A’s construction must remove an architecture constructed in the ceiling inside the building, install the water pipe, and conduct an installation of the water pipe, and thus, Plaintiff A’s construction on February 26, 201, called “the instant bridge” at a height of up to 2.5 meters.

“After the construction of the instant bridge, the instant bridge was built by putting on the top of the instant bridge, and the instant bridge was destroyed by the ground-to-date ground ground cutting off to the floor in the process of scambling the instant bridge.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

At the time of the instant construction work, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff A with safety equipment, such as safety caps, or conduct safety education. The instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff performed the instant construction work on its own, because the Plaintiff did not assign personnel who could either fix or support the instant bridge by putting the instant bridge.

E. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are the children of Plaintiff A.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The plaintiffs asserted that liability is recognized. The defendant works on the instant bridge.