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

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

1. The facts of the foundation are as follows: (a) the construction contractor awarded a contract for a new construction project in Seo-gu Incheon (hereinafter “instant new construction project”); (b) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction project with the Defendant bamboo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant bamboo Construction”); (c) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease and service of construction machinery with the Defendant bamboo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant bamboo Construction”); and (d) on December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction machinery lease and service with the Plaintiff with the Defendant bamboo Construction; and (e) on December 3, 2012, the occurrence of the accident involving the removal of the instant scrap by using the instant scrap at the site of the instant new construction project with the Defendant bamboo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant previous construction”). There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain the balance between the instant cranes as the ground of the place where the instant cranes were installed was invaded and modified because it was influenced to the load, and the Defendants neglected the duty of safety management to prevent the Plaintiff from installing the instant cranes on the ground of the unstable ground, or to move only the construction materials on the ground that the said ground was influenced. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants were liable against the Defendants to compensate for damages incurred from the electric reproduction of the instant case.

B. The Defendants’ assertion is not due to the subsidence and transformation of the ground on which the instant tea was installed, but due to the Plaintiff’s mistake in the operation or the mechanical defect of the instant tea itself, and there was no negligence in performing the duty of safety management on the new construction site of this case, and it was against the Plaintiff.