beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a person running the business of leasing heavy equipment in the trade name of C, and the defendant is a person engaged in landscaping business in the trade name of D.
B. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was requested from E, the head of the Defendant’s on-site working group, to receive a request for the delivery of pine trees off by using cickers at the field of extraction work of pine trees D located in F.
C. Accordingly, around 08:30 on December 31, 2015, G, an employee of the Plaintiff, injected H 50 tons of H 50 tons of the instant vehicle at the Defendant’s tree extraction site (hereinafter “instant accident vehicle”). On the same day, around 16:00 on the same day after the Defendant’s on-site stop work, the instant accident occurred while the instant accident vehicle was being restored using the instant accident vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
【Fact-finding without any dispute over the ground for recognition】The entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6-6, Gap evidence G, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The accident of this case occurred due to the failure to maintain the ground at the site due to the failure to maintain the ground at the site and the collapse of the ground caused by the collapse of the vehicle in this case. Thus, the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to properly perform the duty of care to prevent the collapse of the ground at the time of the work, even though the ground of the place where the cater is installed was cut down, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff as compensation for the tort.
B. The instant accident was not due to the collapse of the ground, but due to G’s negligence, namely, the Plaintiff’s employee, which was installed by G in order to support the instant accident vehicle, and the instant accident occurred due to G’s failure to measure the weight of pine trees and having lost the center while working. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for damages to the Defendant.
3. Occurrence of liability for damages;
(a) A.