A. The Plaintiff is a corporation entrusted with industrial accident compensation insurance affairs by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), and B is a worker of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) who is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. D is the driver of E concrete pumps (owner F. hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Around 15:00 on March 9, 2015, at the Ulsan-gun G G located in Ulsan-gun, G, Ulsan-gun, where the boom booming cost of the Defendant vehicle, which was a concrete snowing work, was the head of B, who was working in the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the booming booming around the head, caused an accident by which the boom boom b’s booming the booming around the head.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

In the instant accident, B suffered injury to “B”, “W” and “W” and “W” and “W” in the instant case, due to the pressure frame of the first Twitter, the fluoral stoke, the stoke, the stokes, the stokes, the stokes, the stokes, the stokes and the s tokes.

E. Until March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid KRW 67,540,700 in total, including KRW 24,16,400 for temporary layoff benefits, medical care benefits of KRW 8,972,300 for disability benefits, and KRW 34,452,00 for disability benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 6, 7 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact that the defendant is liable, as an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage incurred by B due to the accident in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the accident of this case constitutes the exemption item is not accepted).

Limit of liability, however, as an employer or B who instructs work, weather.