beta
Text
1. Defendant B: (a) KRW 9,360,722 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and 5% per annum from February 9, 2017 to March 21, 2018.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant C, who was awarded a contract for the installation of a list of the non-party company’s factories in e in ethic City from Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “non-party company”), subcontracted the above list installation to Defendant B.
B. Defendant B leased 25 metric tons from the Plaintiff to 700,000 won per day for the installation of a list (hereinafter “instant list”). On January 14, 2017, the date when the head of a list was installed, Defendant B adjusted the instant list by the Plaintiff’s staff F of the Plaintiff around P.M.
C. The Plaintiff, which was adjusted by F, entered about about 10 meters in height of the straw (weight to 12 tons) and the Plaintiff did not change the weight (hereinafter “the instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff’s mechanical parts owned by Nonparty Company, which were in the factory of Nonparty Company and Nonparty Company, were damaged by the Cirled Set 304 HL, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 9, each video of Gap evidence 6 and 10, witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. (1) Determination as to the claim against Defendant B on the following facts: F, who is the Plaintiff’s employee of the Plaintiff at the liability for damages caused by the damage (A) of this case, adjusted the damage of this case, and the accident of this case occurred. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments admitted earlier, two signal numbers were assigned for the installation of the list. Defendant B, the lessee of this case, led the installation of the list, such as designating the place where the list was installed as the upper signal number and ordering the string to put the string, etc.; Defendant B, the lessee of this case, led the installation of the list; and Defendant B, the weight of the string exceeds the KRW of the string’s work; and Defendant C, who sent warning from the string over two to three occasions, in excess of the risk of the accident.