A. The Plaintiff is a public corporation established pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and entrusted by the Minister of Labor with an industrial accident insurance business, and the Defendant is the owner of the B sowing machine (hereinafter “instant sowing machine”) and the driver at the time of the accident.

B. At around 12:30 on January 15, 2013, the Defendant, as the driver of the instant excavation aircraft, did not discover the victim D who moved through the narrow channel of the instant vehicle while conducting excavation work related to the construction of soil at the site of the hotel construction work located in Boan-si, Boan-si using the instant vehicle and did not find out the victim D who was moving through the narrow channel of the instant vehicle, and the H beam installed on the ground of the instant excavation search aircraft, caused an accident involving the victim’s body (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Due to the accident of this case, the victim died with chest pressure.

C. The construction of a limited-liability company, which is the execution company of the said new construction, was under the supervision of the construction site through the head of the field office and the overall management of the safety management business, and the construction of the limited-liability company or the construction was under the subcontract for the part of the said construction.

The defendant is a limited liability company worker. D.

Based on the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, until February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,051,700 for funeral expenses and KRW 170,758,260 for survivors’ benefits.

[Grounds for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of the occurrence of liability for damages and the fact of the recognition of the above 1, the defendant, the driver of the excavation search machine of this case, was negligent in returning the excavation search machine of this case by checking whether there was another person within the working group, and by checking whether there was any other person within the working group, and even if there was a duty of care to prevent the accident.