1. The defendant's 49,66,67 won and 29,933,333 won and 29,000 won respectively to the plaintiff Construction Co., Ltd. and the defendant.

Facts of recognition

On October 20, 2010, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of a new plant for the Defendant’s branch production of D's branch production plant to the Plaintiff, Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”), and on November 2, 2010, Plaintiff A awarded a contract for the construction of a new plant among the aforementioned new construction works with KRW 529,540,00 (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”).

On July 10, 201, at around 01:20, an accident that explosions on the Toluene tank (hereinafter “the instant Toluene”) installed at the construction site of the said new construction site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

As a result, E (the Head of Working Group) and F (P) who are workers of Plaintiff A, who had been employed in the above tank upper part at the time, died by the credit immediately.

(hereinafter referred to as “victims”. The results of the investigation by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the identification by the Silung Police Station include the following: (a) the victims were presumed to have explosiveed on the part of the tank upper part of the case, even if the Toluene and the testamentary gift remains within the Toluene tank of this case; (b) the victims were able to use the Toluene by lids from the tank upper part of the case; and (c) the victims were presumed to have explosiond by the fire.

On May 24, 2011, the instant Toluene tank was installed at the construction site of the Defendant, and around June 201, at the construction site of the Defendant, pipes were completed by the Plaintiff A, and on July 7, 201, the instant Toluene tank was installed at the construction site of the Defendant.

At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the instant Toluene tank was in a state where approximately 70% of water was stored in order to conduct hydro testing for hydro testing of the tank in accordance with the Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act.

On the other hand, the head of G, who is an employee of the Defendant, said to the effect that “the head of G, who is an on-site director, changed the pipeline work to H as the tank 2 tank is installed,” and H, on July 6, 201, consulted with the head of the Defendant’s division, as the Plaintiff’s representative director I was installed with “the tank 2 tank.”