1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,308,613; (b) KRW 13,66,717; and (c) KRW 23,372,316; and (c) KRW 23,372,316 to Plaintiff C.

On the premise, Plaintiff A is a person who operates a dump truck registered in the name of Plaintiff C, his spouse, E 25.5 tons (hereinafter “the first dump truck of this case”). Plaintiff B is a person who drives a dump truck of F25.5 tons owned by himself (hereinafter “the second dump truck of this case”).

The Defendant is a contractor who was awarded a contract for the creation of H of Kimhae-si G G (hereinafter “instant construction site”) from the Gstrust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction site”), and a sampling light Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “dypland”) is a company entrusted with the collection and removal of earth and rocks at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “the collection and removal of earth and rocks”), and part of the collection and removal of sampling earth and rocks were resubcontracted to K via I and J.

The plaintiff A and B, under the direction of dump site of this case, operated a dump truck of this case on the surface of the earth and sand excavation at the place of collecting earth and sand at the construction site of this case and transported it out of the construction site of this case.

(A) On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff A and B transported earth and sand to be removed from the site of this case for the purpose of raising soil and transporting them to the outside. On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff A and B loaded soil and stone on the instant 1 and dump trucks at the place of gathering earth and sand at the site of this case for the first and second dump trucks, while they loaded them on the instant dump trucks at the place of gathering earth and sand at the site of this case for the instant construction (hereinafter “the instant temporary work”). At the point where the slope of the dump truck in this case was complete, the instant 1 and 2 dump trucks were covered (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiffs' assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, 27 evidence (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings is the purport of the whole pleadings is the construction site of this case.