1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, with the exception of adding “No. 3-2 and No. 5” to the second end or third end of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and adding “No. 3-2 and No. 5” to the third end or part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasons for recognition is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1) The Daeyang General Construction Co., Ltd. leased the instant vehicle in the course of performing concrete building works among the facilities repair works in the Namyang General Construction Co., Ltd., and B, as a worker of the Daeyang General Construction Co., Ltd., working for concrete building works at the same construction site.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination as to the establishment of joint tort

A. (1) According to the facts of recognition of joint tort liability: (a) the operator and the tenant of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “large Comprehensive Construction”) have the authority and responsibility for all safety management affairs at the construction site. The instant accident occurred due to the construction site of this case where large Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “large Comprehensive Construction”) had B, a worker, perform concrete removal works at the construction site of this case; (b) placed a safety manager at the site to prevent industrial accidents caused by the power failure of the instant vehicle and the collapse of the ground; and (c) in the event of construction work using construction machinery, the driver was negligent in performing the duty of due care to give sufficient notice of the circumstances that hinder or threaten the work; and (d) in installing a support stand for the instant vehicle to build concrete building, the driver of the instant vehicle did not have the ground sufficiently confirmed, and did not have sufficient support and sufficient support for the ground so as to avoid subsidenceing the ground; and (d) neglected to do so by negligence.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the instant vehicle, is the defendant.