beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 147,441,865 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from March 17, 2016 to January 22, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, for a considerable period of time from the date of March 2009, along with a supplementary intervenor D, had registered his/her business under the trade name of “E” (i.e., construction, category of construction, and type of work), and (ii) had been performing interior interior interior interior decoration works, such as Chang Ho, Electric Construction, and Tail Construction. (ii) G requested supplementary intervenor D to perform waterproof construction works on the rooftop (iv) of the H fourth floor building of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) on March 2016, and introduced the said construction requested by the supplementary intervenor D to the Plaintiff and F.
3) On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff arrived at the instant building, along with I, an employee, and began to work for the removal of the roof and windows for the purpose of waterproof construction of the fourth floor of the instant building and the installation of windows and railing. F is a J vehicle on the outer wall of the building to perform the said work (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
(4) On the fourth floor of the building of this case, I boarded up the boarding box (3 meters in length, 1.1m in width) of the instant vehicle operated by Defendant B, and carried out the removal of roof covering material. The Plaintiff saw up to the fourth floor of the instant building and removed the instant vehicle.
And I, together with the plaintiff, have been removed from the ground in boarding of the phishing material that was removed by the plaintiff, and the said phishing material was moved to another vehicle.
5 I, even thereafter, have loaded the vehicle of this case operated by Defendant B twice, and loaded the 4th floor of the building of this case with the roof singing materials removed and removed singing materials.
While I performs the same work, the plaintiff was at the 4th floor of the building of this case in order to expand the window trusses.