1. The defendants' assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s Intervenor is both the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s supplementary intervenor.

From No. 4 to No. 9 of the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court’s 6th to No. 9th is incorporated into the original type construction corporation (one development corporation prior to the alteration), which was established by dividing the civil engineering work sector of Defendant Inina Development, on March 21, 2014. The electrical construction business sector of Defendant Inaina Development was incorporated into the Defendant Kui Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Construction”). On July 23, 2012, Defendant Inaina Development Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Cukdae-N”)

was divided and merged in this chapter.

Ro, “after,” Defendant 1 is both the “Defendant 1” and the “Defendant 1 Geum comprehensive Construction.”

The 10th parallel 3 to 14th parallel 2th parallel are as follows:

[A] First, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s appraisal results as to the causes of the instant accident, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 16, the first instance court’s appraisal results, the inquiry results about Gap of the first instance court’s appraiser No. 2, the first instance court’s appraisal results, and the witness testimony and arguments of the first instance court’s appraisal witness A, and the first instance court’s appraisal results, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was not caused by the plaintiff’s error in the construction of the transmission tower in the course of establishing the transmission tower, but caused the Plaintiff’s design or manufacture of the transmission tower itself, which was designed and produced in advance for the installation

The defendants' assistant intervenor who designed and manufactured the transmission tower of this case and supplied it to the plaintiff shall be approved by the purchase specification, design standards, and the Korean War.