1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 38,789,779 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from May 26, 2016 to November 23, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s body arranged in the freight partitions while driving the Plaintiff’s 2.5 tons of the Plaintiff’s 2.5 tons of the Plaintiff’s truck and then moving the 2.5 tons of the Plaintiff’s 2.5 tons of the truck (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as cage cages cages, suskes, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

The Plaintiff, due to the instant injury, was hospitalized in the Hospital of the Medical Center of Korea at Ansan-si from May 25, 2016 to June 9, 2016, at the Hospital of the Medical Center at Ansan-si from June 9, 2016 to August 25, 2016, at the D Hospital located in Ansan-si, a member C, from Ansan-si, from June 9, 2016 to August 25, 2016, and at the F oriental Medical Hospital located in Ansan-si, from August 25, 2016 to September 23, 2016, respectively.

다. 피고 B는 피고 주식회사 비젼앤아이의 직원이다.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-5 (including virtual numbers), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, the whole purport of the arguments against the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, as a result of the examination of the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul's transfer of the defendant Eul had not been adjusted by hurex, and the defendant Eul's access to the plaintiff's reorganization, conflicts between the defendant Eul and the defendant Bosch Rexroth, and the plaintiff's body is sufficient in the process.

The plaintiff asserted that, after completion of the reorganization at the place where Bosch Rexroth was loaded, the forek vehicle driven by the defendant B was approaching the cargo space and that the accident of this case occurred, but there is no reasonable ground to enter the cargo space, which is the direction of the replacement line, and that the fore part of the forek vehicle that entered the replacement line, which is claimed by the plaintiff, was filled with the vehicle pipe.