A. The facts of recognition (1) B was an employee of the Defendant, and around 14:00 on May 7, 2013, around 2013, at the Defendant’s workplace located in the 230-68 location, the Defendant Company B loaded a block for civil engineering and construction works using the vehicle possessed by the Defendant Company B, which was located in the 230-68 location, and the Plaintiff did not find out any solid timber, which was placed on the truck, and there was an accident where the Plaintiff, who arranged the truck, was cut off the Plaintiff’s truck with the head of the vehicle and the freight partitions of the truck (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury to the right side of the instant accident, such as the mouth of the mouth of the mouth (ma11), the middle right side of the Gwanak (Ma11), the mouth of the mouth (Ma13), the face right side of the Gwanak (Ma13), and the first mouth (Ma14) to the right side of the Gwanak (Ma14).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul's video, Eul's testimony, the plaintiff's questioning result, the result of the plaintiff's physical appraisal of the head of the party Seoul Hospital at the branch of this court, the results of each appraisal supplementation and fact inquiry result, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to discover the plaintiff who was in the next place, while the driver of this case, who was the driver of this case, was to drive the vehicle in which the driver of this case, was negligent in driving the vehicle in which the plaintiff who was in the next place.

As such, B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant accident as a driver of the said shop and an illegal act, and the Defendant, as the employer of B, who is a driver and an illegal act, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant accident.

C. On the other hand, according to the above facts of recognition and each of the above evidence, the plaintiff was also obligated to anticipate the risk in the work in the near future, and failed to properly perform it. The plaintiff's error is also the case.