1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is the owner and driver of B digging machines (hereinafter referred to as “instant digging machines”) and the defendant Eastern Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant East Fire”) concluded an insurance contract with the defendant with regard to the digging machines of this case. The plaintiff is a company that provided industrial accident compensation insurance services to C, who is an employee of Korea Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Development Co., Ltd.”), for which the plaintiff provided insurance benefits due to occupational accidents.

B. At around 09:05 on April 3, 2013, C in the event of occupational accidents: (a) with Defendant A, who operates the instant excavation equipment, engaged in the work of transporting the sn beam on board the sn beam loaded while dismantling the sn beam; and (b) suffered bodily injury, such as the sn beam, the declines, and the sn beams, and the sn beams on both sides, of which the sn beam loaded while engaged in the work of dismantling the sn beam loaded.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

From May 28, 2013 to November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff received a claim for medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits under the instant accident from C, and paid C the insurance benefits totaling KRW 66,210,670, including the total amount of medical care benefits, KRW 18,748,90, the total amount of temporary disability compensation benefits, KRW 29,474,480, the total amount of disability benefits, KRW 17,987,200, and KRW 17,987,20.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, part of Gap evidence 2, Eul witness Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case is attributable to the fact that the defendant Gap, around the other hand, opened the h beam beam loaded with the quiquith in the course of the excavation of this case, and because the h beam transported with the h beam loaded with the quith of this case, the h beam of the h beam loaded by the defendant Eul was dismantled, and the accident of this case occurred while the h beam was dismantled.