1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant D Co., Ltd. are 489,794,516 won, the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) B and the defendant C Co., Ltd.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that contracted and performed G construction works located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun with H Co., Ltd.

Defendant B is the owner of the I 750t flag (hereinafter “instant flag”) and Defendant C is the branch company of the instant flag.

On August 19, 2013, Defendant B leased the instant climate to Defendant D, and Defendant D sublet the instant climate to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2013.

B. At around 13:00 on December 29, 2013, the term of the instant G Construction, the Defendant B’s employee at the construction site, was transferred to the left-hand side while he was engaged in the process of moving power generation facility fastens by the J’s operation at the construction site of the said G Construction site.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, K-owned 25t straw, liquid oxygen storage tank was damaged on the back of the main body of the instant flag, glocket, blocket, engine fixed blocket, main body and boom boom boom, booms inside the core body, bracker, bracker, bracker, and liquid oxygen storage tank in the vicinity of the instant flag.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 15, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the fault of J or the defect of the used season of this case. Thus, the defendant B is the employer of J and the owner of the used season of this case, and the defendant C is the employer of J, and the defendant D is the indirect occupant of the used season of this case and the lessor and the employer of J, and is jointly liable for damages to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendants argued that the accident of this case occurred as a preparation for the plaintiff's wrong work instruction and insufficient work instruction, they are not liable for damages to them, and the defendant Eul is liable for damages to the plaintiff as a counterclaim.