beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. At around 11:00 on August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff was waiting within the said Crec in the process of installing and dismantling the virtue pipe using the Plaintiff’s 8 ton nives, the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “instant Crecrecing”). However, the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, was waiting in the said Crecrecing off the operation of the said Crecrecing and waiting within the said Crecrecing. However, there was an accident that the Defendant’s employees operated the ceiling Crecre in the said place of business, and caused the instant Crecrecing from the backing.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6-2 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff suffered damage from expenditure of KRW 8,420,000,00 in total to repair the cream of this case due to the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the above KRW 8,420,000 to the plaintiff as the user of B.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) After the instant accident, the Plaintiff considered a simple test operation, such as returning the body part of the instant cranes immediately after the instant accident. In light of the fact that the said cler had no big problem in the instant cler’s work, and that the said cler was transferred to another work on the following day, it is difficult to deem that the said cler was considerably damaged to the extent that the repair cost of KRW 8,420,00 was incurred. 2) The repair of the instant cler was conducted on August 19, 2015, two weeks after the date of the instant accident, and there was no other accident among them, and there was no possibility of maintaining the cler’s repair content, such as duping, decomposition, assembly, decomposition, etc., among the repair content of the said clers.
However, it seems that it was necessary due to the aging of the above cranes.
3 The plaintiff also did not take measures, such as sounding a light at the time of the troke of the trokele or shaking a hand against the driver of the trokele.