A. At around 17:10 on October 16, 2013, Defendant B: (a) loaded heavy steel onto C Freight (hereinafter “instant freight”); and (b) carried it in the factory of the COSmmchemical Co., Ltd., Defendant B destroyed the pipe track (Pipe Rack) installed in front of the instant plant Co., Ltd. by shocking the part of the mid-term equipment installed in the instant freight vehicle with the incidentalism; and (c) destroyed the pipe track and the part of the goods transported within the said plant.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is the owner of the instant cargo vehicle, and Defendant B was the representative of Defendant A at the time of the instant accident.

C. Cargo which Defendant B was carrying the instant cargo onto the instant cargo is a raw material to be supplied by the Plaintiff to the COSA chemistry, and the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant Thaie Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Taie”) and supplies it to the COSA chemistry.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the replacement of the pipe with the company, and paid KRW 51,700,000 to compensate for damage caused by the OSA chemical due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserted that the said Defendant is liable as an employer who employs the Defendant A or B for tort liability in the course of supplying heavy metals to the Plaintiff, and even if it is not liable as an employer, it is an accident in the course of performing the obligations under the steel supply contract concluded with the Plaintiff, and thus, is liable as an incomplete executor.

First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant employed the defendant A or B as an employer of the above defendant's tort liability. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

The following: