A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C”, is a person who engages in the business of leasing scrap 25 tons D (hereinafter “instant scrap”). The Defendant, who has a construction machinery operator’s license, worked in “C” from July 21, 2014.

B. On August 6, 2014, around 7:20, the Defendant: (a) driven the instant tea and went to the construction site located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; (b) there was an accident involving the instant tea going to go to the wheels of the Defendant, resulting in an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is responsible for compensating the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident in this case since the accident in this case occurred because the defendant was driving while viewing DMB. The defendant's driving falls under risk work. The defendant operated the hand hand of the plaintiff in the front of the road while driving DM on a narrow channel and the accident in this case occurred. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for compensating the defendant for damages caused by the accident in this case's tort as to the accident in this case caused by the defendant's passage.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of evidence evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7 as well as the pleading, namely, ① the way in which the instant accident occurred is a straight line, and is deemed to have never existed electric wires or particular obstacles on the way at that time, and the passage of people or vehicles is limited, ② the instant accident occurred due to negligence committed by the Defendant by neglecting the duty of front-time care, ④ the width of the instant cler is 2m or 62m, and the instant accident is merely 3m or more, and the width is 3m or more.