1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,720,000 against the defendant and 6% per annum from May 13, 2017 to November 16, 2018.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 shall include branch numbers, and the same shall apply hereinafter;

(i) each entry or video, the purport of the entire pleadings

A. During the construction site of a family facility, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff-owned excavation grounder (C, 13.7 tons, 2010 type, hereinafter “instant excavation grounder”) from the site of a family facility, which was executed by the Defendant during the Jeju City, including the steering personnel.

B. Since the sloping machine may damage the sloping machine while being connected to the sloping beam, it is necessary to use a smoker or to stop the operation of the sloping machine of this case and then use it. Nevertheless, on December 14, 2016, the Defendant used the sloping machine when the sloping machine is connected to the sloping beam beam.

C. As a result of the inspection conducted on December 17, 2016 due to the failure to operate the instant excavation devices, it was confirmed that the instant excavation devices were damaged by the main computer, engine computer, and monitoring parts due to excessive electricity.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of finding the liability for damages, since the defendant's negligence of using the sn beam beamline near the sn beamline when the sn beamline is connected with the sn beam beamline, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant, before making a contact with the Plaintiff, called the Plaintiff the starting operation of the digging machines of this case. Since the Plaintiff did not comply with this, the electric current came to flow, the damage of the digging machines of this case was caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s negligence on the sole basis of the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the damage of the excavation machines of this case was not caused by the defendant's negligence in contact with the defendant, but the starting operation of the excavation machines of this case was turned out immediately after the contact, and it was different from the breakdown of the excavation machines of this case.