손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s “C” (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”).
(2) The Defendant, from around October 2013 to around May 18, 2014, operated a mutually advantageous retail business. (2) The Defendant, while conducting excavation works for the purpose of laid underground as communications tubes in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu from around 2013 to E, incurred losses from the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct its business at all as of the wind to prevent people from entering the road, such as soil and cement block (i.e., the Plaintiff’s operation from October 10 to 10, 2014). Moreover, on November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct its business at least 50% from the following day until May 18, 2014. The Defendant, while leaving the above excavation works for the purpose of laying off as communications tubes on the sidewalk, was discharged from the upper part of the upper part of the earth and the upper part of the body and the upper part of the body and the upper part of the body of 13.14.213
3) Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of income and the loss incurred from the above injury (the loss of actual income and medical expenses) due to failure to conduct the business.
B. Each of the images indicated in the judgment 1, 1-2, 1-1, 4-1 through 3, and 9-1 through 9, the Defendant’s access to the road before the Plaintiff Company was obstructed by piling up waste materials, such as soil and cement block, generated from excavation works on the front of the Plaintiff Company, and thereby interfered with access by the Plaintiff from October 10 to May 18, 2014.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant neglected protruding block in India while performing excavation works, and unless there is any evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit without further review.
2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.