2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a construction business under the trade name of “E,” and the Defendant is a person who drives heavy equipment.

B. The Plaintiff was performing the removal work of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and around September 8, 2016, an accident that collapses on the building at the construction site at the above site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the intervention of the intervenor as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit, the intervention in the prevention of corruption under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is permitted in cases where it is objectively acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant are likely to infringe on the intervenor's rights or legal status.

In this case where the plaintiff sought damages against the defendant, the intervenor asserted that the defendant is not liable for damages against the plaintiff as the insurer of the defendant, and sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, and also sought confirmation that the intervenor's obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant under the insurance contract as stated in the attached Form does not exist in relation to the accident of this case.

However, it is difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to objectively recognize that they have intent to infringe on the rights of the Intervenor through a lawsuit on the principal lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that they meet the requirements for participation in prevention of harm under the latter part of Article 79

Therefore, the intervenor's application for intervention by the independent party is required.

It is unlawful on account of its lack of case.

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while the Defendant, who was performing the removal work with heavy equipment on the third floor of the building site in the said construction site, was forced to immediately lower the Plaintiff’s work instruction, disregarding the Plaintiff’s work instruction, and is attributable to the Defendant’s total causes.