beta
Text
1. Around 14:00 on May 20, 2015, the period of the work of cutting off the digging season at the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) factory located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C and B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant excavation season”) and the Defendant is the owner of the Defendant’s logistics center factory located in Chungcheongbuk-gun A and the instant sand position plate building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).
B. The Defendant requested the piracy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCLOS”) to the Defendant’s new construction construction construction business chain, and the Director of the UNCLOS directed C, the engineer of the site, to conduct the floor chain rearrangement work related thereto.
C. At around 14:00 on May 20, 2015, C had been performing the project to adjust the floor surface around the instant building, but without properly verifying the surrounding topographical features, caused an accident that damages the bottom of the outer wall board of the instant building (hereinafter “instant accident”) by negligence in the course of business, which operated and operated the instant excavation search machine.
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 are deemed to be combined with the video, the entire purport of the pleading, and the counterclaim.
In addition to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the occurrence and scope of liability for damages, in addition to the appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings by appraiser D, the fact that the building of this case was damaged by negligence prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the construction cost incurred in restoring the instant building to its original state prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, respectively, is recognized, and thus, the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of C, is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the above amount, barring any special circumstance.
As to the plaintiff's claim on the limitation of liability, the plaintiff's claim on the limitation of liability should be resolved.