2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The main point of the party's assertion as to the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff, who attempted to avoid the towing, due to the negligence that the plaintiff did not properly verify whether the plaintiff's Cick pilot violated the work rules during the container loading work in violation of the work rules, was responsible for compensating the plaintiff's damages. Thus, the defendant, the employer of the above pilot, is liable for compensating for the plaintiff's damages.

In regard to this, the defendant concluded a lock container which fastens a container to the Traler without completing the loading work of the Traler because the plaintiff violated the work rules and was at a dangerous place within the radius of work, other than the safety zone, in violation of the work rules, and concluded a lock container which fastens the container to the Traler, and led it to the Traler with the container. The defendant's pilot belonging to the defendant could not be seen as the plaintiff because the plaintiff was located in the blind area, so there was no negligence on the traffic accident of this case as well as on the part of the la

Even if there is no proximate causal relation with the traffic accident of this case.

Judgment

In order for the Defendant to be liable for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant traffic accident, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the negligence and the negligence of the Defendant, who contributed to the cause of the said traffic accident, and the Plaintiff’s damage. This must be proved by the party asserting the liability for damages.

According to Gap evidence No. 11's video, at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, the fact that the defendant Crein pilot did not have a container at one time in the Trein and carried a container back is recognized.

However, the above evidence and evidence B.