A. D, on June 29, 2015, around 18:20 on June 29, 2015, as “E”, instructed four employees, including G, including G, to carry in the said apartment building Nos. 402 using a lifts for the transportation of animals, around 103 10 F apartment buildings, at the same time.

B. H performed the work of transporting an article with four workers using a lifts for transporting Ibbridges owned by oneself (hereinafter “the instant bridge”). G, a worker, was on board the transport equipment of the instant bridge.

G, while transporting sub-frequencys on board the transport equipment of the instant bridge, the transport equipment, which did not take the lower part, fells on the ground below nine meters, and subsequently, the transport equipment fells into the body of G, and G died with a mass transfusion due to the crym crym crym of cryp at its site. G died with a mass transfusion due to the crym crym of cryp at its site.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The plaintiffs and J jointly inherited the shares of G as 1/4 shares.

The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for automobiles for business use with H on the instant bridge vehicles.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 11, Eul 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, who concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with H as to the instant private bridge vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident.

The Defendant is liable only for any accident that occurred due to the operation of an insured vehicle, and the accident in this case occurred while G was using transportation tools due to the imbalances between the moment when G was suspended in the fourth floor. Thus, the accident in this case is not an accident due to the operation of the instant bridge.