2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. At around 17:30 on May 17, 2013, Defendant A cut off optical cable 3 (72C, 8C, and 60C) laid on the river floor among steel delivery areas in Chungcheongbuk-gun B, the river of which was laid down on the river floor.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant North Japan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the employer of Defendant A, and Defendant A was in the process of completing relocation construction as a water supply pipe supplied and supplied by the Defendant Company at the time of the instant accident.

C. There is no sign, etc. indicating that optical cables were laid in the instant accident site. D.

The amount calculated by the Plaintiff’s calculation of the expenses for restoring the optical cables cut off due to the instant accident as well as the compensation for facility damage is KRW 20,747,00.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that in order for the defendant company or the defendant A to perform excavation work, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that did not confirm whether major underground facilities are installed in the place of excavation work or its neighboring areas.

B. According to the above facts, the accident site of this case is not a point where Defendant A performed excavation works, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendants are obliged to verify whether the facilities buried underground, such as communications conduits, etc., are located underground in the site of this case.

C. In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff did not install signboards, etc. that the instant accident site laid a telecommunications optical cable, as seen above, appears to have never been possible for Defendant A to know that the instant accident site laid a telecommunications optical cable on the river floor by cutting the river, which is the place of the instant accident.

Therefore, as long as it is difficult to see that Defendant A was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, this is different.