1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that carries out industrial accident compensation insurance business entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).

The Defendant National Trucking Services Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Federation”) is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s new truck owned by the Defendant New Cargo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s new truck”).

Defendant A is an operator of the Defendant vehicle.

B. 1) An accident occurred. C.C. Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C. E.C. construction”).

FF factory construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) located in Namyang-si I from the FF Corporation.

) After being awarded a contract, among them, the Corporation shall be a Dogwon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ggwon Construction”).

(2) The Defendant’s vehicle is not a scar equipment vehicle equipped with the equipment for boarding, but the Defendant’s vehicle directly created a work unit connected to the Defendant’s mobile straw, and used the construction site in the same way as in the instant case to board the work site and move it to the work site.

3) On July 25, 2013, at the instant construction site around 09:57, Defendant A (hereinafter “victim”) connects Defendant A with a unit construction for the installation of a factory building outer wall board built by the Construction at the instant construction site, and connect Defendant A with a unit construction unit in the Crecers of the Crecers, and one-time worker B and C (hereinafter “victim”) of the unit construction.

B The driver was driven by the driver at the above work unit.

At that time, Defendant A did not have a view to the retaining wall before and after the front.