All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the assertion added or emphasized by the Defendants in the trial. Therefore, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that, at the time of the instant accident, those parts used in the Defendants’ work do not have a department at the time of the accident, but were engaged in the work by using the above parts after the accident. However, according to the video of No. 3 and the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination by the court of first instance, it is recognized that those parts used in the Defendants’ work were broken out due to the instant accident.

The above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that, in the event that the Defendants engaged in the sastrual operations at the time of the instant accident, it is not necessary for the assistant to assist in the sastrual operations by the assistants, but the Plaintiff was in the vicinity of the sastal operations. However, according to the evidence mentioned above and the evidence stated in the 8 and 9 evidence, and the purport of the oral argument, the Defendants must carry out the sastrual operations by emphasizing weight centered on the characteristics of the sastrual operations

Therefore, the defendants' above assertion is not accepted (the testimony of H of the first instance trial witness is supported).

C. The defendants asserted that Gap evidence No. 2 was not taken by the plaintiff immediately after the accident of this case, and that the plaintiff was taken before and after the plaintiff was escorted to the hospital, and thus, the situation cannot be explained at the time of the accident. However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 18 and 19, and the result of the plaintiff's personal examination by the court of first instance, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff was taken at the time of the accident of this case.

The above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion