A. Fact-finding 1) Defendant South-Namn Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is limited to “Defendant Company.”

A) A company is engaged in a paper recycling business, etc., and Defendant B is a driver of a five-ton vehicle employed by the Defendant company. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”).

(2) On February 25, 2013, around 07:10 on February 25, 2013, the designated parties C are the Plaintiff’s wife, and the designated parties D, and E are the Plaintiff’s children.) The Plaintiff asked Defendant B to gather the Mable to the Defendant B, who would drive and enter the Mable vehicle while working in a place where the Mable is accumulated more than the Mable of the Defendant Company’s workplace.

3) The Plaintiff reported Defendant B’s walking of the water network cover of the vehicle, and continued to work in front of the front of the string of the string of the string vehicle. Defendant B moved to the string of the string to the string, thereby falling into the Plaintiff’s math (hereinafter “instant accident”).

4) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the sacrife sacrife and sacrife sacrife, sacrife, salk

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that caused the failure to look at whether there is no person around the accident of this case in the defendant B, and even if there is a duty of care to work safely. Thus, the defendant B is a tort, and the defendant B is a joint employer of the defendant B, and the defendant company is jointly liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

C. However, the limitation of liability is limited, although the plaintiff knew that the defendant B will work to move the two lanes of the two lanes, he did not look at his movement within the radius of his work, and the plaintiff's mistake also caused damage to the accident of this case.