1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the husband and wife of the designated E-child C, and the Selection D is the plaintiff's children.

B. On December 7, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 150,000 per day from the Defendant and intended to affix seals to stairs walls, walls, and ceilings at G entrances located in Pyeongtaek-si F.

(hereinafter “instant work”). C.

In the course of the instant work, there was an accident that the Plaintiff, who was enrolled in the work team, fell into the floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as the left-hand sulke, the anti-monthly sulll, the left-hand sulll, the right-hand sulll, and the sulverging of sulvers.

(hereinafter “instant injury”). D.

From December 9, 2013 to January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the I Hospital located in Pyeongtaek-si H and received treatment, and the Defendant paid KRW 3,677,600 for the treatment period.

E. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a written statement of performance with the Defendant that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 2.5 million for operating expenses, KRW 100,000,00 for auxiliary devices, and the Plaintiff shall not raise any problem any more.”

(F) (hereinafter “instant agreement”). From September 10, 2014, to November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the instant injury and the bones, etc., and undergone surgery for removal of excreta, etc., and requested the Defendant to pay KRW 6,143,550 for medical expenses, but the Defendant did not comply with the request on November 12, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit after sending a certificate of content to the Defendant to the effect that the instant agreement was revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 15, 17, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff received daily allowances from the defendant, and the plaintiff suffered the injury of this case from the wind that the work price is not sufficient while performing the work of this case at the defendant's construction site.

The defendant is the employer and the plaintiff.