손해배상
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 14,832,00 for the Plaintiff jointly with the Defendant C and the Plaintiff on July 4, 2014.
The reasons for our court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, after deducting the judgment on the scope of the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiff (Articles 5, 11 through 6, 5) from the judgment of the first instance.
(1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not liable for damage during transport, as the Plaintiff was directly responsible for the transportation of the instant machinery. However, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was not liable for damage, i.e., the Defendant’s supply and demand of the Plaintiff for the construction of the instant machinery, which was located in another place, and then requested for the transportation of the instant machinery by directly contact C. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not only to install the instant machinery, but also to carry out the transportation services, and that the Plaintiff used C as the performance assistant to repair the instant machinery due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation; and (b) sought compensation for the same amount of damage.
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the facts that the plaintiff entrusted the repair of the machinery of this case to H engaged in the mechanical repair business, etc. with the trade name "G" on February 20, 2014 after the accident of this case are recognized as having been entrusted with the total repair cost of KRW 94.6 million (=supply price of KRW 86 million + value-added tax of KRW 8.6 million).
On the other hand, however, the fact-finding results on Gap evidence 10, and the fact-finding results on the Daglargs Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "high machinery") are all the arguments.