beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단22370

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,700,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 15, 2012 to April 6, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is engaged in packing boxes manufacturing business, and the defendant is engaged in tea rental business.

B. On November 15, 2012, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s request, transported a package stuff printing machine located in the Plaintiff’s business place (hereinafter “instant machine”) to transport the same lane and loaded it on the freight vehicle.

However, there was a problem that the driver's view is visible when the volume of the instant machinery was transported by the driver, and thus, the Defendant was in charge of transportation by receiving the signal from the person in charge of the Plaintiff's side.

In the meantime, while the Defendant had the instant machinery loaded on the cargo vehicle, there was an accident that the machinery lost balance and falls into the bottom again as the machinery was loaded on the wind which had not been loaded in a stable state of machinery.

C. Due to the shock of the foregoing accident, some transformations occurred in the part of the device that transports the packaging paper of the instant machine, making it difficult to function properly, and as a result of appraisal, approximately KRW 11 million (including the repair cost and the future repair cost) was required to repair the defect.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-1, and 1-2, the result of appraisal of the appraiser's facilities, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the repair cost by causing damage to the Plaintiff by making the instant machinery to be loaded safely on the cargo loaded, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.

B. However, the Defendant’s scope of liability is reasonable to be reduced to 70%, taking into account all other circumstances shown in the argument in the instant case, such as the Plaintiff’s instruction or cooperation negligence necessary for transporting the instant machinery with a large volume of volume, and the operation status of the machinery after the accident, etc.

C. Therefore, the defendant is seven.