1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant M&A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant M”) is a construction company that constructs bridges, etc. based on A-BEAM’s license for a shot beam bridge, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) is a company that engages in business such as expansion of concrete board structure and retaining wall structure, production of Indian floating bridge, construction of a floating bridge, etc.

The network E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is a person who was employed and worked for Defendant M on July 12, 2016.

B. On July 2017, in order to preserve construction materials, the Defendants: (a) transferred the materials in custody of the Defendants at the place of the site contract for the camping site located in the Chungcheongnam-do, where the Defendants were leased, to the camping site located in the Chungcheong-gun F operated by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant camping site”); and (b) Defendant M leased part of the above camping site from Defendant C without compensation, and stored the steel sculp fry (the mold of steel materials in advance manufacturing concrete structures used in the A-BEM, bridge) and the sculb (the scul installed in a structure that enables the string of the string concrete structures).

C. On July 20, 2017, the Deceased and the Deceased’s Company East D visited the camping site in order to verify the status of custody of the river flusium and the land in the instant camping site. On July 20, 2017, the Deceased visited the camping site around the night site on the same day. At around 9:00 a.m. on the same day, the Deceased was on the top of 1.28 meters high, which was loaded at the above camping site, and the Deceased died due to the accident that the highest concrete panel was fluent (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

Plaintiff

A The deceased's spouse and the plaintiff B are children.

E. In relation to the instant accident, K, a staff member of the Defendant C, was prosecuted due to occupational injury, occupational injury, and violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as 2017Kadan862). On September 7, 2018, K, a staff member of the Defendant C, was prosecuted for the instant accident.