1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,529,518 and its interest to the Plaintiff are 5% per annum from August 29, 2016 to August 21, 2020.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On August 29, 2016, around 15:10 on August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff fell at a 4m height from LPG underground tank, which was discharged from a bridge near the steel (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the upper right flaverization flaver, the left flaverization flaver, the upper right flaverization flaver, the right blavere flaver, the right blaver flaver, the right blaver flaf, etc., and was hospitalized for 240 days.

At the time of the completion of treatment, the playgrounds of the right satisfaction has been permanently left permanently, and the mathal disorders of the right satisfaction were left a market for 7 years after the accident.

3) On August 29, 2016, the Defendant’s personal information is indicated in the business owner’s column for the application for industrial accident compensation benefits submitted by the Plaintiff to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. [The entries and images of evidence A, 1 through 4, 7, and 10, the result of the court’s physical appraisal entrustment to the E hospital head, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, an employer shall be obligated to devise necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and the employer shall be liable to compensate the employee for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty.

According to the above evidence, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident, since the defendant is found to have caused the accident of this case due to the negligence that the defendant, at the above construction site, failed to fully prepare stability devices for the prevention of the fall accident.

However, even though the plaintiff was negligent in complying with the safety rules at the 4m workplace and in need of safe work, it contributed to the occurrence of the accident.