1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 27,857,142, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 78,564,597 and each of the said money.

1. The underlying facts D(the fact that there is no dispute) network D(hereinafter “the deceased”) had Plaintiff B and C as his/her child between Plaintiff A and his/her spouse.

The defendant company is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing telecommunications machinery and accessories.

On August 1, 2005, the deceased was employed as a production worker of the defendant on August 1, 2005 and has been promoted to E around 2008.

On January 23, 2015, the deceased discarded waste around 19:00, and was found before the house and sent back to the hospital of 119 first-aid services.

The Deceased died on February 11, 2016 after receiving hospitalized treatment.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the Defendant Company’s workplace where the Plaintiff asserted was employed by the deceased, harmful gases, such as fine dust, carbon dioxide, salphade, slue, luene, ethylbene, and ethylene, are emitted in large amounts in the process of manufacturing products by cutting up polychlorates by using rash processing devices. As such, the Defendant neglected to install a ventilation or air condition so that the deceased, who is a worker, does not inhale harmful gases, even though he/she was obliged to do so.

In addition, the defendant had the deceased work from around 08:30 to 22:00 on a daily basis and had the deceased work overtime up to the new wall.

Since the deceased died due to such harmful gases inhaled, overwork, and stress as above, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the death of the deceased.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not reveal the harmfulness of discharged substances asserted by the Plaintiff, and the workplace had ventilation facilities, such as ventilation, etc., and the Deceased did not impose labor strength on the manager.

The Defendant cannot be deemed to have had intention or negligence in relation to the death of the Deceased, and the causal relationship between the death of harmful gas, street, and the deceased cannot be recognized.

3. Whether to recognize liability for damages;

A. The employer of the relevant legal doctrine is an employee as an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying the labor contract.