1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 23,756,920 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C Co., Ltd from April 21, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The party status 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”)

) At the port of call, the Korea Exchange Holdings located in Nam-gu E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Exchange Holdings”).

(2) On November 24, 2016, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was awarded a contract with Defendant B for the design work of the instantwale in KRW 1,600,000,000.

3) Defendant D operated a lighting business with the trade name “G”. Defendant C was awarded a subcontract for the lighting work among the interior design works of the instant database. 4) The Plaintiff entered into a work-based employment contract with Defendant D, and performed the lighting work in the instant database.

B. On April 21, 2017, at around 13:55, the Plaintiff fell on a bridge up to a height of 4.2 meters, which was set up on the bridge in order to install a string at the 1st floor of the instant wab in the instant wab, and then fell on the bridge while fixing the wringe to the strings.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff sustained an injury, such as scarcity, due to the instant accident. D.

As to the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed an industrial accident with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and received respectively KRW 33,112,940 as temporary layoff benefits and KRW 98,384,710 as disability benefits.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 8, Eul's 1, Eul's 1, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings [Defendant C: Confession: Confession of confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act];

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident of this case’s responsibility of Defendant B, according to the direction of Defendant B, is caused by Defendant B’s failure to check the weight of the stoppy, which was installed at the place of the stoppy which was previously installed at the place of the stoppy. The Defendant B instructed the installation of the stoppy in order to prevent the occurrence of the accident, such as checking the condition of the stoppy, installed at the place of the stoppy.