1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as a party is a corporation established pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), which is entrusted by the Minister of Labor with an industrial accident compensation business, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid contract with A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) and B bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 25, 2011, in the course of the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle in the vicinity of the E-school located in Ansan City by driving the Defendant vehicle at around 07:03 on January 25, 201, the instant accident weather vehicle company (hereinafter “AH”) leased the Defendant vehicle from A to and from its employees with C. In the course of the operation of the vehicle in the vicinity of the E-school located in Ansan City by driving the Defendant vehicle at around 07:03, there was an injury to the Defendant, such as the f, G, and H, who was on board the Defendant vehicle, due to the collision of public telephone gambling in the course of avoiding the ice ice f, G, and H.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to the victim F in total of KRW 12,952,410, including medical care benefits 2,326,010, temporary disability compensation benefits 10,626,400, and KRW 6,361,090, which include medical care benefits 656,400, temporary disability compensation benefits 5,704,690, and health care benefits H, and KRW 12,627,130,00, in total of KRW 10,724,920, temporary disability compensation benefits 10,724,920.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A provided the Defendant vehicle as a vehicle for commuting to and from work by an employee of the Plaintiff, and had C, one of its employees, drive the Defendant vehicle. Even if the Defendant vehicle was operated according to the route designated by the Plaintiff, A still controls the said vehicle through C through the Defendant vehicle and benefits arising from its operation.