2. Of the total costs of litigation, the part resulting from the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the part resulting from the participation by the independent party intervenor, respectively.

(a) Main claim;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Plaintiffs 5) 95,256,779 respectively, plaintiffs 7 (Plaintiffs 6), and 8 (Plaintiffs 7) 47,628,389 respectively, 5% per annum from December 29, 201 to the service date of a copy of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Intervention by independent parties;

1) The plaintiffs confirm that their rights in KRW 92,265,200 are vested in an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating").

2) The defendant shall pay to the intervenors 92,265,200 won with 5% interest per annum from December 29, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for intervention of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all the claims of the plaintiffs and intervenors corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap's evidence 1 through 8, 10, Eul's evidence 1, 7, 8, 9, and Byung's evidence 3 through 5 (including each number), the testimony of non-party 2, non-party 3, the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, the original information and communications of the first instance court, the information and communications of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding with respect to the branch offices of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

(a) Employment relationship with the information and communication company;

1) The Information and Communications Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HT”) was subcontracted to the construction of telecommunications base station facilities among the construction of facilities in the Ulsan 1st ground base station, which the new HET Co., Ltd. received from the Korea TEA Co., Ltd.

2) On December 6, 201, in order to carry out the said construction, nuclear information and communications entered into an employment contract with Nonparty 1, who was certified as electrical distribution lines, from December 6, 201 to December 30, 201, setting the wage-day 250,000 won, and entered into an employment contract with Nonparty 2, the owner of the vehicle (vehicle number omitted) 4.5 tons of the same day (hereinafter “accident vehicle”) and Nonparty 2, the owner of the vehicle (vehicle number omitted), who is the owner of the vehicle (hereinafter “accident vehicle”), and the period of work from December 6, 201 to December 30, 201, with wage-day 50,000 won (including vehicles).

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

1) On December 29, 201, Nonparty 2 was instructed to transport electric wires to work places, and around 08:30 on December 29, 201, Nonparty 2 instructed Nonparty 3 to load one electric drum and drive an accident vehicle to drive the vehicle on the part of the vehicle involved in the accident, to put the vehicle at the entrance of the (location omitted) north-do forest path in the Dogjin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the working place.

2) Nonparty 3 stopped in a state where other workers of the boom information and communication are on board the vehicle involved in the accident, arrived at the above work site, which is a photographic road, in the direction to prevent the front part of the vehicle involved in the accident. After that, Nonparty 1, who was waiting at the work site, operated the boom, fixed the accident vehicle by manipulating the boom, and operated the boom, thereby stopping the front part of the vehicle involved in the accident. Nonparty 1 died between the vehicle involved in the accident and the retaining wall during the operation of the boom (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The status and status of the parties

1) Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Alternatives: Plaintiff 5) are successors who inherited Nonparty 1’s property in 1/7 shares, respectively. Plaintiffs 7 (Plaintiff 6) and 8 (Alternatives: Plaintiff 7) are successors who inherited Nonparty 1’s property on behalf of Nonparty 1, 14 shares, respectively.

2) An intervenor is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with Nonparty 1 at the time of Nonparty 1’s death.

3) The Defendant is an insurer which has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 2 as to the vehicle involved in the accident, which guarantees liability for damages caused by the operation of the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of participation

A. Determination on the part of the claim for confirmation against the plaintiffs

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is recognized that it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous. Thus, a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, despite the fact that a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of a dispute (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). In addition, Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act permits an independent party intervenor to intervene in only one of the plaintiff or defendant against the plaintiff or defendant.

Therefore, the Intervenor asserts that he was entitled to the claim for damages against the Defendant by Nonparty 1, who inherited by the Plaintiffs, and sought payment of KRW 92,265,200 against the Defendant, and again seeking confirmation against the Plaintiffs that he/she had the right to the said money against the intervenors may file a lawsuit seeking implementation, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation. Therefore, the part of the Intervenor’s claim for confirmation against the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination on the part of the claim against the defendant for monetary payment

The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant and the intervenor's claims against the defendant are incompatible with each other, so the intervenor's independent party intervention is unlawful.

However, the Intervenor’s assertion argues that the Plaintiffs received the damages claim for payment from the Plaintiffs through the instant lawsuit, and sought the payment of such damages claim. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant and the Intervenor’s claim against the Defendant is incompatible. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant shall be liable to compensate the insurer for the accident caused by the accident in this case caused by the operation of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The damage of Nonparty 1 caused by the instant accident is KRW 631,79,79 in total, including passive damage 586,797,459, solatium 45,000, and solatium 45,000. In addition, the Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress due to the death of Nonparty 1 as their brothers and sisters or kins. The Plaintiffs are 5,00,000,000 won in case of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (large: Plaintiff 5) in case of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (large: Plaintiff 5), respectively, and KRW 2,50,00 in case of Plaintiffs 8 (large: Plaintiff 6), respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 95,256,779 won [90,256,779 won (631,797,459 won x inheritance shares of the above plaintiffs 1/7) + 5,000,000 won for each of the above plaintiffs] to Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (Plaintiffs: 7) + 47,628,389 won [4,128,389 won (631,797,459 won x 1/14 of the above plaintiffs' inheritance shares x 2,50,00 won], and damages for delay against each of the above plaintiffs.

2) Intervenor’s assertion

The intervenor obtained from the plaintiffs the claim for damages from the non-party 1 due to the accident in this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay 92,265,200 won and damages for delay among the damages to be paid by the defendant to the non-party 1.

3) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the accident, Nonparty 1 was in the position of the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident, or even if not, it does not constitute another person provided for in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Thus, the defendant does not bear liability for damages against Nonparty 1 under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. Determination as to the establishment of liability for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

1) Whether Nonparty 1 was in the position of an operator for the vehicle involved in the accident

The term "person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act means a person who is in the position of a responsible subject to the control of the operation of the relevant automobile and the benefit therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da73424, May 16, 2014).

As seen above, it is only limited to the worker of the original friendly information and communication who leased the vehicle involved in the accident, and the non-party 1, not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, cannot be deemed to be in the position of the responsible subject to the control over the operation of the vehicle involved in the accident and to benefit therefrom, and this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) Whether Nonparty 1 constitutes another person under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

The liability for compensation under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is recognized when a person dies or gets injured the “other person” due to the operation of a motor vehicle. The other person referred to in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to “other person except the person who operates a motor vehicle on his/her own behalf and the driver of the motor vehicle.” As such, a person who actually drives the relevant motor vehicle or has engaged in assisting in the operation of the motor vehicle does not fall under any other person provided for in Article 3 of the said Act. In determining whether a person is a person who has engaged in assisting the driver in the operation of the motor vehicle, his/her duties shall be comprehensively taken into account as to whether the person is involved in the driver’s act of driving the motor vehicle, the relationship with the driver, the detailed details, degree and time of the driver’s participation in the act of driving, the situation at the time of the accident, whether the driver is involved in the solicitation or voluntary intention, and whether the cost for the participation has been paid (see Supreme Court

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 was a person who actually driven a vehicle at the time of the accident, or was engaged in assisting in the operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and was not another person provided for in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and was not a person provided for in the provisions of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, since the front part of the vehicle involved in the instant accident, which started with the booming booming the booming boom and started with the accident (it is not a non-party 1, although the plaintiff asserted that he was not a person who operated the boom or the booms at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time

Therefore, the plaintiffs and intervenors' arguments premised on the defendant's liability for compensation against the non-party 1 under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act are without merit without further review.

① When performing work on a slope surface, the head of Si/Gun/Gu must take measures to maintain the horizontal course and prevent towing by using four eurgies, eurgies, bed trees, etc., but Nonparty 1 used only two eurgies on the front left, and Nonparty 1 operated eurgers in a safe state where the vehicle involved in the accident was not properly fixed on the floor, and the vehicle centered on weight is likely to cause a fire to the front part of the vehicle, and the accident in this case appears to have occurred.

② A special certificate or license is not required for the operation of a vehicle for the accident, and the vehicle involved in the accident is operated and operated by Nonparty 2. However, in the absence of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3 may be operated or operated by other workers. Nonparty 1 may be operated at another construction site prior to the accident in this case.

③ Workers at the work site at the time of the instant accident, including Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, who were employed by the prime information and communications company, and carried out the installation of electric wires, etc., and the accident vehicle also leased the said construction work for the said vehicle.

④ The electrical distribution line, such as Nonparty 1, had been unloading with other workers. At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 1 started to operate the Arate and the Crails first, and the other workers seem to have been going up to or waiting on the ground to load and unload electric wires for their loading and unloading.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the intervenor's claim for confirmation against the plaintiffs is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiffs' claim and the intervenor's claim against the defendant are dismissed. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is so revoked and all of the plaintiffs and intervenors' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)