1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 23,291,557 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from December 2, 2015 to November 15, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A is the number of drivers belonging to Defendant Jinjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Jinjin”).

Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Sea”) concluded a business liability insurance contract between February 4, 2014 and February 4, 2015 with respect to the instant forkives, etc. owned by Defendant A (hereinafter “instant forkives”).

B. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant A left the instant vehicle to be used at the shop of the warehouse C in the north port of Incheon by leasing the instant vehicle from Defendant Jindo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CJ”) and the Defendant A, a driver thereof. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant A did not discover D (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who was in charge of crying the instant vehicle for co-transport and was in charge of crying at the rear side of the vehicle, and caused the occurrence of an accident, which led to the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the victim suffered injury, such as the left part of the left part of the vehicle, balke, balke, and vertebrake, etc.

C. The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid KRW 16,134,960 of temporary layoff benefits and disability benefits 11,23,240 of disability benefits and KRW 28,248,30 of medical care benefits to the victims until December 1, 2015 pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the accident of this case is one of the first driver, and it is well examined whether there is a person within the radius of work, and the defendant A's negligence and the second driver, who violated the duty of care to drive, were evacuated at a safe place during the movement of the second driver and the second driver,