2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s failure to properly capture the mash-down operation system, despite the Defendant’s duty to execute the instant pipeline construction in a way that the mash-down is to withstanding the water pressure, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages arising from the instant accident pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay KRW 142,048,731 as compensation to the victim of the instant accident, thereby discharging the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 85,229,238, an amount equivalent to 60% of the Defendant’s fault ratio, out of the amount of reimbursement under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), the defendant contracted to the joint defendant Co., Ltd. in the first instance court for the construction of pipes of the entire building. The accident of this case can be recognized as the occurrence of the closure of the course installed in the "consembing shop occupants' connected construction works" constructed on the above main pipe. However, this Ireland had already concluded a lease contract prior to the completion of the building of this case and completed the construction of individual pipelines in accordance with its business purpose, and this Ireland submitted an tegy plan to the tegyzz, and designated the location of the part connecting individual pipes as shown in the attached Form No. 1, and the defendant was in accordance with the above drawings.