1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering payment to Defendant EPP Co., Ltd., which is below.

1. In fact, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the following facts do not arise between the parties, and Gap 1, 4 [the report related to the Speaker’s wall and Falulth fall accident, and the defendant Eul shall be the defendant EPP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”):

(2) The Plaintiff’s report submitted by the Plaintiff is prepared within the Defendant Company and completed the approval of the Director of the Department, and its contents cannot be considered as favorable to the Plaintiff. However, it cannot be concluded that the admissibility of evidence is nonexistent solely on the ground that it did not go through the internal approval procedure under the Korean Civil Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Even in a case where a person who has obtained evidence did not prove the establishment of evidence, the court may recognize it with free evaluation without any other evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37138, Sept. 10, 209). However, the above report submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as being prepared within the Defendant Company and completed the approval of the Director of the Department, the head of the Department, and the Director of the Shipbuilding, and it is reasonable to deem that it has been established in accordance with the purport of the entire request for physical examination and the purport of the first instance court.

The defendant company is being established for the purpose of building vessels and is operated in the form of reporting general progress of management such as production process by the president of each workplace operated by the defendant company.

B. Defendant Company subcontracted to Defendant B, who operates E, equipment operation and signal work during the shipbuilding work, with the period from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013. During the shipbuilding work, Defendant Company subcontracted the shipbuilding work to G operating C during the shipbuilding work.