On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) have occurred at the construction site of C Apartment in the net city.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of the Dworkre (hereinafter referred to as the “instant scrap”), and the Defendant is the owner of E concrete pumps (hereinafter referred to as the “instant pumps”).

Plaintiff

On January 25, 2018, F, a staff member, operated the instant studs installed in front of the Gdong Building at the Gdong Building site of the instant studs in order to communicate with H and gather materials on the ground by driving the instant studs installed in front of the Gdong Building at the Gdong site of the instant studs.

At the time of the instant settlement work, Defendant I stopped the pumps of this case on the side of the Jdong apartment building at the new construction site, and set up a pumps boom and prepared concrete removal work on the 12th floor floor of the Jdong apartment building.

F Working as the instant community, while the F was forced to boom the pumps of this case (hereinafter “the instant accident”) with the rear part of the said community as follows, and due to its shock, the boom boom boom boom of this case was displayed.

GJ [Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 9, 10 evidence, Eul 1 and 3 evidence, witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s employee’s assertion at the construction site of this case was aware of the work of the instant athletes, and the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of booming the pumps of this case within the radius of the Creree’s work.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is exempted from liability because there was no predictability and possibility of avoidance of the instant accident.

B. While the Defendant’s assertion that boom boom in this case was prepared for concrete snowing work in a fixed state, the instant accident occurred by negligence without raising the height of clers, even though the Plaintiff’s employees and the person in charge of hand signals did not verify whether there was an obstacle within the radius of the cler work and secure the altitude between clers and booms more than a certain interval.