1. The claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff is a contractor and a person in charge of the field management of the construction site, who received a contract for the extension of a factory from the contractor and the contractor who received a contract for the extension of the factory from the contractor in the Dispute Settlement Co., Ltd., and performed the work under the binding of steel in order to stop the operation of the season by ordering D while moving the steel bars, and to combine it with the following: The Plaintiff suffered injury on the bridge because the Plaintiff’s string of the string of the string and the string of the string of the string and the string of the string of the string.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff leased and used the aircraft, which was an insured automobile, from Defendant B along with the driver D.

C. Defendant K non-life insurance Co., Ltd. is a flag insurer.

[Evidence: A. 8 evidence for subsection (a), (b), and (c) do not dispute

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B is the employer of the former driver D, and is liable for tort liability due to failure to manipulate the mid-term operation of D who is an employee.

B. Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable for Defendant B’s damage compensation liability as the insurer of Defendant B.

3. Determination

A. As to the facts found by Defendant B, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, as the contractor and on-site manager, was recognized to have leased and used D with D as a construction contractor and on-site manager, and had D entirely under his direction and supervision. On the contrary, there is no evidence to acknowledge the management and supervision relationship with Defendant B with regard to the instant work at the time of the instant accident, and thus, the claim against the Defendant is without merit.

B. Since the Plaintiff, Defendant 2, the registered insured, was engaged in the work at the time of the instant accident by leasing and using the insured motor vehicle with Defendant 2, the registered insured, together with Defendant D, as a driver, the Plaintiff constitutes the insured as the approved beneficiary under Article 7 of the instant Automobile Insurance Terms and Conditions (B).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da68027, Apr. 25, 2000; 94Da56791, Apr. 28, 1995). Therefore, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this Opinion.