1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following amendments, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

【The amended portion of the first instance judgment [the Plaintiff received insurance benefits of KRW 161,705,940 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service] 2, 14 and 15 of the first instance judgment “The Plaintiff received insurance benefits of KRW 206,934,620 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service until March 23, 2017 (48,204,340, medical care benefits of KRW 114,587,240, medical care benefits of KRW 114,587,240, and KRW 44,143,040 from August 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017].”

The part of section 5-9 (2) of the first instance judgment is as follows.

In the contract for work, unless there is any gross negligence on the part of the contractor with respect to the contract or order, the contractor shall not be liable for the damages inflicted on a third party regarding the work. However, where the contractor has reserved the right to direct and supervise the work's progress and method and has specifically directed and supervised the execution of the work, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and his employee. Thus, as to the damages inflicted on a third party due to illegal acts of the contractor or his employee, the contractor cannot be exempted from the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, and the above direction and supervision shall be related to the method of the execution of the work, such as direct direction, supervision, and encouragement, to the extent that

(Supreme Court Decision 90Da18432 delivered on March 8, 1991). We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion in the labor contract.