1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for employer liability insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) that provides that “if the insured employees bear legal liability for damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation paid pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to an occupational accident that occurred to the insured workers, the amount of compensation limit shall be KRW 100,000,000 (per person)” and “if the insured employees bear legal liability for damages exceeding the amount of accident compensation paid pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

Luxembourg The defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement on E-si (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") with M.

B. At around 00:30 on April 25, 2015, C, an employee of D, such as the occurrence of the instant accident, was a driver of the Defendant vehicle in the vicinity of the said road, who installed a warning sign ( approximately 30 meters prior to the work site) and a warning sign indicating that the said company is in construction work on the two-lanes among four-lanes of the dun-ro-ro (round 30 meters prior to the work site) in order to perform the construction of the F Facilities, and sent a water signal with a light signal sign in order to control vehicles travelling along the surrounding road, while M, the driver of the said Defendant vehicle, who was the driver of the said road, did not check the receipt and sign, etc. of C and shocked C as they were, thereby causing injury to C, such as the name of the ew, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the defendant's vehicle at the time of changing the course from the two-lane to the one-lane is sufficient to install a safety facility. The defendant's argument is not accepted, and the accident of this case is called "the accident of this case."

(1) In relation to the accident of this case, C received respectively the amount of temporary disability compensation benefits of 21,489,060 won and the amount of health care benefits of 13,295,080 won, and is currently receiving disability benefits of 07th 00.

D. The plaintiff