Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The Defendants are jointly and severally.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an outsourced business operator of industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Defendant A is the owner and driver of the vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant excavation searcher”). Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is the automobile insurer of the instant excavationer.

B. Nonparty D, along with Defendant A, F, and G on April 24, 2016, invested in the construction site of the Icheon Factory Construction Project Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction site”) located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant construction site”) in around 15:20.

F and G were engaged in the work accompanied by the sowing season in this case, such as making the location of fume, fume fume, fume, etc., and Nonparty D performed the work, such as material arrangements, surrounding cleaning, and hearting.

C. As a civil petition at the instant construction site, the person in charge of the work laid fume laid as a fume was absent from other duties, and F took the leading role in the work.

At around 15:20 on the same day, F had to resume work after the lapse of break time, and before F and G have yet to return to work site, Defendant A, while having left the digging machine of this case, had arranged materials, etc. in the toilets at a certain place less than the rear side of the digging search of this case.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) e.

D was hospitalized due to the instant accident, from April 24, 2016 to June 9, 2016, the left-hand bones of sublime, light, and saves, etc.

F. The Plaintiff paid D KRW 12,134,120 as temporary layoff benefits and KRW 11,868,60 as medical care benefits.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Regarding the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the ratio of negligence on the Defendant’s side, who did not examine the rear side, is larger than 70%.

Therefore, the defendant is entitled to the insurance benefits paid by the plaintiff.