1. As to the insured events described in paragraph 1 of the attached list, the insurance contract shall be based on the attached list 2.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts may be found in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings:

The Plaintiff is an insurer of a liability insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the security for the liability of the owner of a facility from December 23, 2012 to December 23, 2013, with the insurance period as the insured of Dogsan Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dogsan Shipbuilding”), and the limit of compensation is the insurer of each liability insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”).

B. At around 13:40 on February 17, 2013, the Defendant suffered damage to the left-hand side due to an accident in which the left-hand elbow is shocked into the parts of the clothes, as it goes beyond the sard from the point at the bottom of the middle part of the sarp, the middle part of the 3rd part of the sarp, the middle part of the sarp 28-1, which is the middle part of the sarp 28-1, which was operated by the sarg Tri (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2. The plaintiff and the defendant asserted as follows. A.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The accident of this case is nothing more than an accident that occurred by the Defendant, the primary reporter of Snodles, selected the Snodles, from which the S Nodles had the S Nodles, and caused the Snodles by his own loss, and the Snodles performed the permanent operation of Snodles three times a day, and it cannot be said that there was a risk that the Nnodles could not use Snodles normally because only the point of the accident of this case was iced only, and the Snodles were in preparation for the safety accident of the Snod users through two safety personnel on the 3rd Snods on the date of the accident of this case. Thus, Gnodles, as the owner of the structure, were obliged to take necessary protective measures to ensure safety in accordance with their use, and fulfilled the duty of safety consideration to Snod users. Thus, Mnodles was the accident of this case.