1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,301,80 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 16, 2015 to April 6, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on reinforced concrete construction business, soil construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who carries out construction and equipment leasing business under the trade name of “B,” while holding pentle (construction machinery buried underground by drilling hole on the land).

B. On September 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was commissioned by Handok-ro Co., Ltd. to perform two relocations and safety fences installation works at the D office located in Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant construction works”); and (b) was awarded contracts for the instant construction works by submitting a written estimate to the police officer during the same month.

C. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff leased one car number E, including articles, from the Defendant, and performed the construction of the relocation of the utility pole. However, the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, removed one telegraph pole using the stude, and caused damage to the underground high voltage cable owned by the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which was buried underground at the construction site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff spent KRW 29,207,200 to recover damaged terrestrial high-tension cables.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, 9 through 13 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

(a) The allegation of the parties 1 Plaintiff F must do excavation work at the point of view of telegraph transfer, under the direction and supervision of G, the head of the Plaintiff’s Working Group.

However, F, while G did not accurately designate a new point in order to go to another site after completing construction work, F, alone with a place of work in a warehouse, did excavation work using a string with a string and caused the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the user of F, was paid by the plaintiff as the cost of restoring the accident of this case 29,207.