The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

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

1. Examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

As to the instant bridge vehicles, C, the registered insured of the comprehensive automobile insurance, was comprehensively delegated the management of the instant bridge vehicle to D while leasing it to D.

D, while subleting the instant bridge to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor participated in the work requested by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as a driver.

D While carrying the instant bridge, while carrying the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was engaged in the work of moving glass using the instant bridge while boarding the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was negligent in getting the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to fall off from the instant bridge.

2. Based on the aforementioned factual basis, the lower court determined that “C is the owner of the instant bridge, and D is the driver, respectively, liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and accordingly the Defendant Company, the insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance, is also liable for damages directly to the Plaintiff Intervenor.” Based on the reasoning stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant Company’s assertion of exemption from liability on the ground that the instant bridge is not the insured as provided for in Article 8(2) of the Automobile Comprehensive Insurance Clause of the Defendant Company’s ground for exemption from liability for personal compensation under Article 8(2) of the Large Compensation Insurance Clause.

3. Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, although the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s determination that recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Intervenor is eventually justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.