1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 18,174,459 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s incidental thereto on April 5, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), and the Defendant is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with A forkives (hereinafter “the instant forkives”).

B. B (hereinafter “victim”) entered into a labor contract with the Cheongsong Fcck Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cheongsong Fck”) and thereafter took charge of the guard duty from April 1, 2012 to the south of Incheon.

C. C, around 9:30 on April 16, 2012, while driving and unloading the instant vehicle at the coastwise of Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon Coast Guard, where he was on duty, and was under duty to load and unload the instant vehicle at the coastwise of the Southern Coast Guard, and was inflicted an injury on the victim of the patrol, such as duplicating and crushing of duplicated dump.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

By April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 10,787,730 won of temporary layoff benefits, 18,514,260 won of disability benefits, and 16,503,320 won of medical care benefits.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the driver of the instant vehicle is liable for damages caused by the instant accident, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, by neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident even though he had a duty of care to prevent the accident by failing to do so. Thus, the Defendant, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, is liable for compensating the victim of the damages caused by the instant accident.

B. According to the above evidence, the victim neglected his duty to safely conduct patrol by taking into account the surrounding areas in the event that the victim was engaged in the work on the rear side of the instant vehicle, and such negligence of the victim was also the cause of the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the instant accident.

I would like to say.

Therefore, it is true.