beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
The reasons why the court should explain about this case by the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the unfair argument of the portion to be borne (the ratio of negligence) by the plaintiff at the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In this case’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to unjust enrichment, it is unreasonable for the first instance court to recognize only 30% of the Defendant A’s share of the instant accident, even though the first instance court recognized the Defendant A’s share of liability for the instant accident, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, a contractor, did not specifically direct and supervise the Defendant A Company (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and performed overall management work at the construction site; and (b) the Defendant A took passive measures despite being aware of the risk of removal from the date of the instant accident; and (c) used the public land for the convenience of the Corporation.
Judgment
The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments cited in the judgment of the first instance court as seen earlier, that is, ① the Plaintiff requested the Korea Electric Power Corporation for the straight transit of the road of this case, ② the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”) which was contracted with the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the Korea Electric Power Corporation for the relocation of the electric poles located on the road of this case, appears to have been removed in the course of the relocation of the electric poles located on the road of this case, ③ the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the Korea Electric Power Corporation, even if the removal of the electric poles was inevitable in view of the removal of the electric poles, was neglected even if the removal of the electric poles was made after the completion of the construction, or at least after it was notified the Plaintiff, the managing authority of the road of this case, and ④ the