beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,225,084 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 10, 2017 to July 17, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Basic facts 1) The Defendant: (a) performed the road probability construction work from December 23, 2016 to December 17, 2017 in the valleydong, Man-dong, and Samsdong-dong, Kimcheon-si; (b) the Plaintiff owned B concrete mixtures trucks (hereinafter “instant vehicles”).
(2) Around 16:00 on September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle and operated the instant vehicle to the extent of 4 meters in width installed by the Defendant by piling up the soil at the instant construction site, while the instant vehicle was cut away near the edge of the access road, and the instant vehicle was restored.
(3) The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,220,00 at the expense of salvage and towing the instant vehicle, and received the instant vehicle for 26 days and paid KRW 26,045,095 at its repair cost. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute any of the facts, Gap evidence 1 through 7, and Eul evidence 9 (including the serial number, the entries and images of Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, since the defendant temporarily opens a road by piling up soil to allow a vehicle to enter the construction site, and the edge of the road is connected to the slope, the vehicle should be moved after taking safety measures, such as setting up a display line, etc. in preparation for the cases where the moving vehicle to leave the road and return it to the road, but the accident of this case occurred by neglecting the vehicle to move without taking such measures, so the defendant is the possessor of the road of this case, who is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case caused by the defects in the construction and preservation of the above structure.
Although the defendant asserts that he was divided into 3-40cm high and 50cm high at the edge of access roads, he was installed by piling up a dam with a width of 50cm. However, when he was viewed as 1-1 video of No. 1-2, he was installed by the defendant.