(a)the reasons for the indication of the claim and the changed reasons for the claim are as shown in Appendix 1;

(b) The main sentence of Article 150 (3) and the main sentence of Article 150 (1) and Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant

C. Some dismissed parts claim against Defendant B for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act until the rendering of the judgment in this case. However, commercial statutory interest rate does not apply to the damages liability for tort, not commercial activity, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is related to an accident that occurred between the murder and the construction machinery, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum is without merit.

However, the plaintiff's above assertion seems to include the purport of seeking interest rate for delay damages under the Civil Act, so the rate of delay damages up to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case shall be recognized as 5% per annum under the Civil Act.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff, a person engaged in construction machinery rental business, etc. under the trade name of D, is the construction machinery indicated in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant construction machinery”).

(B) Defendant B is the owner of the instant homicide and Defendant B is the E (hereinafter referred to as “instant homicide”).

(2) On September 9, 2017, Defendant C was waiting for vehicle cleaning by moving the instant construction machinery to the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Construction Site in order to perform snow removal work around 09:30 on September 9, 2017.

However, at the time, Defendant C Driving, who moved to the instant construction machinery, faces with the instant construction machinery.