The judgment below

Of the above, the part against A by the administrator of the defendant Cable Construction Corporation shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is limited to liability or comparative negligence to promote the equitable sharing of damages in a damage compensation case, the determination of the fact-finding or ratio on the ground is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the equitable principle.

Examining the record (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da48190, Sept. 4, 2014). The lower court’s limitation on the Defendants’ liability ratio to 80% on the grounds of its stated reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of explanation, or omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Shin-chul Co., Ltd., the grounds of appeal for the appeal by Defendant Shin-chul is unreasonable to the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the instant defect, and there is no responsibility for the instant defect to Defendant Shin-chul Co., Ltd.

This is the purpose of disputing the judgment of the court below and the fact-finding based on it.

The evaluation of evidence, which is a premise of fact finding and its premise, is within the discretionary power of a fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

Examining the record, the lower court’s determination of evidence and fact-finding do not seem to have exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. A by the administrator of the defendant rehabilitation debtor Samdo Construction Corporation

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that ① the manager A (hereinafter “Defendant manager”) of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation obligor C&C Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rehabilitation”) is the case.