1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) for the business such as compensating for an employee’s occupational accident. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and C Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. The instant accident 1) Incorporated Welfare Corporation D (hereinafter “D”)

(2) On January 13, 2014, when the Defendant’s vehicle was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driven by F, a transit bus after the completion of the work on September 24, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle was on the 16:08 course at the middle line of the G village and the right side protection wall (hereinafter “instant accident”) and was on the part of the Defendant’s employee, while the Defendant’s vehicle was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driven by F, a transit bus after the completion of the work on September 24, 2014, and was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, at around 16:08, at the center of the right side of the moving direction and at the right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff recognized occupational accidents under Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with respect to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid 20,449,570 won in total, including 3,798,800 won of temporary layoff benefits and 1,282,210 won of disability benefits and 15,368,560 won of disability benefits. (2) Meanwhile, the Defendant paid 3,740,830 won to the victim for medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As to the cause of the claim, the non-party company had F drive the defendant vehicle while providing the defendant vehicle as the vehicle for commuting to and from work of D staff. The non-party company still drives the defendant vehicle through F.