A. 1) On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff is deemed as the “instant Corporation” (hereinafter “instant Corporation”) around July 31, 2015

(2) At the same time, Dump trucks owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”) were carried out at the same construction site.

2) A driver of the instant vehicle parked the instant vehicle at approximately 3 to 4 degrees of gradient in a way that the instant vehicle was parked in a way that the instant vehicle was cut off at around 12:00 on the same day, but did not install a high tree on the wheels of the instant vehicle at the time.

3) At around 13:20 on the same day, the Plaintiff started loading the instant vehicle with earth and sand without verifying the driver’s failure to board the instant vehicle. During that process, around 13:45 on the same day, the Plaintiff’s accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(ii) an event occurred. [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was negligent in performing earth and sand loading operations without verifying whether the instant vehicle was parked in the decline way at the time of the instant accident, and the accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence. Thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages arising from the instant accident. However, the Defendant was negligent in parking the instant vehicle on the decline way, and the negligence was likely to affect the occurrence or expansion of damages. Thus, the Plaintiff’s liability ratio is limited to 90% of the total amount of damages.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Nos. 3 through 5, 6-1, and 6 of the computation of the amount of damages;