1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 19,399,820 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from December 22, 2018 to August 12, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a broadcasting equipment leasing business under the trade name of “D”.

On December 2018, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for performing relay service from E, a public performance planning company, to a group “G” located in the F Sports Center for three days from December 22, 2018.

On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff installed a transit camera, etc. at the above performance hall and performed a wedding practice. During that process, the Plaintiff’s license was destroyed by a license to convert light into a video by converting it into a lower line, thereby creating a video.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff replaced the above relay camera, and on December 22, 2018, the Plaintiff destroyed the replaced Kameras (HDC-900)’s Kameras’s video center in the performance immediately before the performance.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was in charge of the installation and operation of the rash equipment at the above performance hall.

Defendant B is an employee of the Defendant Company, who operated the equipment at the above performance hall.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video, or the whole pleading of evidence Nos. 1-8, 14, and 15

2. Determination

A. In addition to the witness H’s testimony to the effect that the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s Kameras, other than the Ramer equipment operated by Defendant B at the performance site of this case, was not likely to cause damage to the Plaintiff’s Kameras in addition to the ramer equipment operated by Defendant B. In addition to the witness’s testimony to the effect that the ramer’s direct launch of the Kameras is damage caused by the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s Kameras and damage caused to the Plaintiff’s Kameras, it is recognized that the ramer’

Ultimately, even though Defendant B should operate the racer equipment to prevent damage to the carmer installed in the performance hall, it caused damage to the Plaintiff’s 2 carmer by neglecting such duty of care, and the Defendant Company is the user of Defendant B, and the Defendants are co-owners.