1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance," "No. 14 of the 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance," "No. e., facility E had worked for temporary work in accordance with the direction of the director of the division of the KH, but no security duties were assigned. However, since the intervenor was in charge of safety management, such as patrol and inspection, crime prevention (crime prevention), fire and bad weather, etc. as the chief of the security team, the intervenor is identical to the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a change to "on the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, considering the nature of his duties and duties."

(1) The court of first instance that rejected the defendant's claim, even if the defendant's claim was examined in the first instance court and the court of first instance, is not significantly different from the defendant's claim, and all evidence submitted in the first instance court and the court of first instance are examined. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.