A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) around 09:20 on September 23, 2013, 2013, E dump trucks E at the site of “C Multi-household Housing Construction Corporation” located in Jeonyang-gun C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) In accordance with F’s instructions, the Plaintiff was injured by a picture, etc. on the part of a driver’s seat, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”) on the part of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not found to have failed to discover the Plaintiff who tried to prevent the device from going beyond the boundary line of the construction site in order to prevent the device from going beyond the boundary line of the construction site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance policy with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the accident of this case occurred by the plaintiff's negligence, which had tried to prevent high temperature's container container from being combined with that of B engaged in the business of unloading high temperature, and the plaintiff's negligence, which had attempted to prevent high temperature's container from being combined with the container, so the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff

(1) The defendant asserts that the defendant should be exempted from liability because he only carried out the vehicle operation in accordance with the work process at the construction site and the direction of F, which is the signal receiver, without any negligence. However, in the course of the vehicle operation at high temperature, it is important to issue signal number instructions, and thus, whether the signal number is well observed or not, even though he has a duty to properly check whether the signal number is appropriate or not, he has a duty to work in accordance with the signal number instructions given on the side of the driver's seat where it is difficult to view the situation in the future, and even if the asphalt was out of the boundary line, the plaintiff continued to stop it without properly examining it, in light of the fact that the accident of this case occurred, it is difficult to view that B was not negligent in paying attention to the operation of the defendant's vehicle. Therefore, the defendant's above exemption ground is without merit).

However, the plaintiff has limited liability.