1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from June 18, 2015 to October 17, 2017, respectively; and (b)

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) is an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff A is the deceased’s spouse, and the plaintiff B is the deceased’s child.

B. On June 18, 2015, at around 16:00, the Deceased died on a bridge with a height of 2.7 meters at the end of 2.7 meters, while replacing sewage pipe water leakage on the first floor of the building of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul, according to the direction of the management office. As a result, at around 20:33 of the same day, the Deceased died from the brain liver due to the surgery due to the depression of the external wound (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. After that, around August 7, 2015, the Plaintiffs agreed to equally divide and inherit the damage claim arising from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10, 12, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' alleged employer has a duty to prevent the risks of workers, and the deceased died due to the defendant's breach of duty.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the consolation money of KRW 80 million, each of which is inherited by the Plaintiffs (i.e., KRW 80 million x 1/2) and the consolation money of KRW 10 million for each of the Plaintiffs, plus the consolation money of KRW 50 million for each of the Plaintiffs.

B. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer who is liable for damages bears the duty to take 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 is liable for compensating for damages caused by his/her breach of such duty of protection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56734 delivered on July 27, 2001, etc.). According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an employer of the deceased, should not harm the life, body, and health of the deceased in the course of providing work.