1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 25,330,962 with the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from March 28, 2013 to July 2, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a public corporation entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).

Defendant A, who operates B, is the owner of the c mining searcher (hereinafter referred to as the “instant mining searcher”), and the Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant for the instant mining searcher.

B. On March 15, 201, a worker E belonging to D (hereinafter “victims”) was engaged in the work of filling the waterway at the G Sea Reclamation site located in the F of the Gangwon Iron-gun, Gangwon-do. However, D leased the instant searcher and the Defendant A, the owner thereof, to put it into the said site.

Defendant A: (a) laid the burners of the instant excavation machines; (b) moved to the waterway using the clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’s clicker’

C. In the instant accident, the victimized employee was hospitalized or treated at the medical clinic, etc. from March 15, 201 to September 28, 2012 due to injuries, such as mination and mination of pulvers between both sides of the instant accident.

The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid 17,305,300 medical care benefits, 23,272,90 won for temporary layoff benefits, and 3,323,770 won for disability lump sum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, testimony of witness E, result of defendant Gap's personal examination, purport of whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above 1’s basic facts, the instant accident was caused by negligence by Defendant A, who is a driver of a scambling machine, without sticking the safety pin of the scamet.