1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that implements a business that compensates for an employee’s occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the term “the period of mutual aid for the Amer trucks owned by Hyundai Comprehensive Transport (hereinafter “the instant Cmer trucks”) from January 21, 2013 to January 21, 2014.”

B. B (hereinafter “instant driver”) around 10:00 on February 5, 2013, while driving the instant cream within the Gulp 2 factory located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and inserting the cream inside the heat exchange tank (hereinafter “instant work”), the cream became inside the heat exchange unit.

이에 주식회사 고려프랜트 소속 근로자 C(이하 ‘피해자’라 한다)은 열교환기 탱크 내부에서 지렛대를 이용하여 끼인 코일을 분리하는 작업을 하던 중 코일이 피해자 방향으로 밀리면서 경골상단 골절, 무릎 으깸손상 등의 상해를 입게 되었다

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(C) As to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 31,678,900 in total, including medical care benefits 7,406,400, temporary layoff benefits 13,030,50, and lump-sum disability benefits 11,242,00 in lump-sum disability benefits. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1-3, A2-1, A4-1, A4-1, 2, and 5-1, 2, A5-1, 2, and 8-1, 1, 2, and 2-1, 1, and 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the negligence in the operation and operation of the said truck driver, and that the said driver’s fault ratio was 40%. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to the victim’s fault ratio pursuant to Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Plaintiff who subrogated to claim damages by the victim, as well as damages incurred therefrom.

3. Determination

A. The evidence of this case, prior to the form of the instant work, is examined as follows.