손해배상 등
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Kim Young-chul company is dismissed.
2. Defendant Ho Ho Co., Ltd.
1. According to the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant Kim Young-nam Company (hereinafter “Defendant Kim Jong-nam Company”), Defendant Kim Jong-nam Company was issued a ruling to commence rehabilitation on April 7, 2015 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 Ma10070, and the reporting period of rehabilitation claims is the same year.
4. 28. 28. Beginning
5. The inspection period for rehabilitation claims has been 13.0 and the same year.
5.14.10
6. The fact that it was up to September, and the plaintiff was within one month from June 9, 2015, which was the end of the inspection period.
7. It is acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not file an application for the acceptance of a lawsuit in respect of the disputed claim until September, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Kim Young-soo is unlawful.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 as to the claim against defendant Hoho Construction Co., Ltd., the plaintiff leased B 18 tons of the truck (hereinafter "the equipment of this case") to defendant Hoho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Hoho Construction") on August 12, 2014; the fact that the equipment of this case was flooded on August 25, 2014 due to recorded heavy rain, which was located in Busan-gun Co., Ltd. in the construction site; the equipment of this case was flooded on August 25, 2014; the plaintiff was 21,454,748 won [numberd 12,735,80 won for the repair cost: Da4,525,40 won for the repair cost; 4,193,548 won after deducting labor expenses; 500,000 won for the repair cost x 316 days];
According to the above facts, Defendant Hoto Co., Ltd is liable for damages caused by the breach of the duty to keep the leased object as the lessee of the instant equipment, and this does not change even if the instant equipment was operated by the equipment engineer employed by the Plaintiff.
However, it is limited to 50% of the liability to compensate for the contributory portion of the natural power due to centralized care, and the defendant Hoho case is claimed by the plaintiff for 10,727,374 won (=21,735,800 won x 50%).