1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of this court citing Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 5 as “C”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the following portion “2. high-end”

2. The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance for the dismissal are as follows, from 8th to 9th.

We examine whether the Defendant Company is liable for damages by an agreement between C and the Defendant Company on April 1, 2014.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant Company entered into an agreement with D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, on April 1, 2014, that “The Defendant Company is obligated to pay the amount agreed between the parties under the pretext of penalty and consolation money for breach of contract due to unauthorized subcontracting, and the specific amount of compensation and payment shall be governed by the separate written agreement between the Parties.”

However, only with the above agreement, D or the Defendant Company cannot be held liable for direct damage against the victim regarding the instant accident. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that there was a separate agreement on the amount and time of payment of penalty and consolation money due to the breach of the packing work contract of this case between C and D or the Defendant Company, and even if there was a separate agreement on the amount and time of payment of penalty and consolation money, a separate agreement was concluded on the amount of penalty and consolation money.

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff acquired C’s penalty claim as a matter of course in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and thus, against the Defendants of the Plaintiff.