손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court on the facts of recognition and this part of the judgment on this part of the safety defense is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with B to supply snow, etc. (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) at the construction site of this case, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed B’s obligation under the instant lease agreement.
Therefore, according to the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 42,487,901 and damages for delay.
B) Selectively, the Defendant, even though he was aware that he did not have the authority to act as an operator of F (hereinafter “F”), had the Plaintiff enter into the instant lease agreement with B, and had the Plaintiff enter into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, which constitutes the Defendant’s tort.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 42,487,901, including rents, etc. that the Plaintiff did not receive due to the Defendant’s tort, and damages incurred therefrom.
2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had B B and the Plaintiff enter into the instant lease agreement with B, and as long as the instant lease agreement has no effect on F, the principal debtor, the Defendant did not incur the Defendant’s joint and several liability.
In addition, when entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s negligence should also be considered, not properly ascertaining the relationship between B and F.
B. Determination 1) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and changes of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 11, 14 through 20, 24, 26 through 30, 32 through 36, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 (including each number), the defendant belongs with Eul and let the plaintiff belong to the plaintiff.