1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 259,117,395 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from September 1, 2014 to February 20, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the business owner of the “E” located in the Daejeon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant C is the children of Defendant B, and the Defendants are the joint owners of the Plaintiff.

(B) Defendant C, on May 29, 2018, acknowledged that the Plaintiff was in a joint use status with respect to the Plaintiff in the preparatory documents as of August 25, 2018, revoked the said confession in the preparatory documents as of August 25, 2018, but it is insufficient to recognize that the said confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the revocation of confession is invalid).

The Plaintiff prepared an employment contract with Defendant B on August 30, 2014 and worked on September 1, 2014, while working on the first day on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, at around 17:00 of the same day, was injured by the first floor of the instant year, which was 17:0, when boarding the Stick to move the Stick to 3rd floor, and going up to 3rd floor, and then falling down with the first floor, and was inflicted with the injury, such as the 1st century emissions.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff received medical care until April 30, 2015 from the date of the accident after filing an application for industrial accident with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service due to the instant accident. The Plaintiff received temporary layoff benefits of KRW 10,40,080,080, medical care benefits of KRW 22,747,90, and disability benefits of KRW 15,839,90, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4, 6 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants neglected their duty to pay attention to prevent safety accidents as the plaintiff's user, thereby leading to the accident of this case. Since the defendants violated their duty to protect the plaintiff, they are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Code.

B. Limit of liability, however, the plaintiff is also prohibited from the boarding of a person as a matter of principle for cargo, so more careful and prudent.