1. Defendant B’s KRW 120,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from May 6, 2017 to January 3, 2018.

1. Determination as to Defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. The Plaintiff, as to Defendant C, is obligated to park the printing machine in a usual place in transporting the instant printing machine as a cargo driver and take measures to ensure that the driver of the instant printing machine has a duty to safely load and unload the said printing machine within the scope necessary for loading and unloading. Although the Plaintiff is obligated to install a string device to fix the printing machine not subject to loading and unloading, it is not necessary for Defendant C to illegally park the printing machine in the string direction in the string direction, not for the string direction. On the other hand, Defendant C’s failure to carry the printing machine that is not subject to loading and unloading at the string direction, and thus, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages due to tort.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant C had committed a mistake as claimed by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident only with the statement of No. 1 and the testimony of the witness D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. If Defendant C parked in a photographic place.

Even in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the above testimony is acknowledged as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s employee instructed and supervised the entire loading and unloading work at the site of the instant accident; (b) the Defendant also parked and parked in a place directed by the Plaintiff’s employee at the time of the instant accident; and (c) the loading and unloading work after the Plaintiff’s employee instructed D. In light of the above facts, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone can be recognized as having been negligent in relation to the instant accident.