A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and B is a worker of C who is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D digging machines (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. B around 11:40 on June 2, 2014, around the 11:40 Busan’s articles of incorporation, the eable juth of the eb block F-dong 2nd of the F-dong 2st of the facility was performing the dismantling work of the copirr.

The above work: (1) under the sn beam beam of G with the Defendant’s vehicle: (2) cut the sn beam beam from the sn beam beam upper upper part of the sn beam to the sn beam; (3) combine the sn beam from the sn beam upper part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the sn beam; and (4) transport the sn beam from the sn beam upper part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the outside; and (5) transport the signal to G, the process of moving the sn beam to the sn beam; (4) during the work process, while G did not move the sn beam to the upper part of the sn beam beam beam by using the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (2) B was suffered from injury, such as crushing and crushing in the upper part of the upper part of the sn beam part of the left part due to the said accident.

C. The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident and paid KRW 157,601,220 of temporary layoff benefits until February 6, 2019 to B, and KRW 30,878,450 of medical care benefits (medical care costs). B was approved by the medical care until May 29, 2019, which is the day following the date of closing the argument in the instant case, and is currently under hospital treatment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 7-2, and 7-2

2. Defendant’s liability for damages and Plaintiff’s right of indemnity;

A. According to the defendant's liability for damages and the fact that the plaintiff's right to indemnity occurred, the accident of this case occurred due to the operation of the defendant's vehicle without examining the location of GB.

As such, the defendant is the defendant's vehicle.