Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordering payment below.

The reason why the court of first instance states this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (based on the facts of the first instance). Therefore, except for the case where the "construction machine supervisor" of the third fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as a "construction machine operator", it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The meaning of terms used in this section is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance. 2. Claims and judgments

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant operated the workplace of this case under the direction and supervision of N Co., Ltd. entrusted with the business of loading and unloading and classification of the freight at the workplace of this case (hereinafter "N"). Employees of J, which entered into a contract for N and Logistics Classification Transport with N, who operated the workplace of this case without a construction machinery operator's license, while driving the instant vehicle owned by the defendant at the workplace of this case, while causing injury to the plaintiff.

Even if so, the defendant is liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because he has the operation control and operation profit as the owner of the instant vehicle.

B. 1) The relevant legal principles on the issue of whether the contractor is liable for damages, unless there is gross negligence on the contract or instruction, is liable for damages inflicted on a third party regarding the work (Article 757 of the Civil Act). However, where the contractor reserve the right of specific direction and supervision on the work progress and method of the contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and the employee, and therefore the contractor cannot be liable for damages caused by the illegal act of the contractor or the person under consideration. The same applies to the subcontract.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da2615, Jun. 23, 1992).