1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) ordered E running D to remove concrete walls of C factories in Gangwon-do F (hereinafter “instant work”).

The above E employed G to perform the field safety management work of the instant work.

B. The instant work commenced around 9:00 on February 26, 2014, and around 10:20 on the same day, around 10:3m in width, 11.3m in height, 8.9m in thickness, 12cm in weight, and 4t concrete walls (hereinafter “instant wall”) were attempted to remove. At the time, E was in the position of “public business owner” in the attached site map (hereinafter “instant situation map”) while supervising the site of work, and G was in the position of “safety management personnel” while controlling the office entrance according to the direction of E.

C. E instructed Defendant A, who is a driver of scambing machines, to open the wall of this case, and Defendant A operated scambling machines, thereby pushing the wall of this case over to the opposite side of scambing machines. During that process, G was placed on the wall of this case and died around 11:26 of the same day.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

As prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff paid to the deceased G medical care benefit of KRW 687,970, and his bereaved family members a lump sum amount of bereaved family benefits of KRW 94,90,00, funeral expenses of KRW 9,539,140.

E. Defendant B is the owner of a scoof.

Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Fire”) is an insurer who has entered into a construction machinery automobile insurance contract with Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident occurred due to Defendant A’s “operation” of the so-called so-called the instant wall.