1. The defendant's KRW 17,820,571 as well as 5% per annum from May 21, 2020 to November 27, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. During the implementation of C&D, the Plaintiff reported the occurrence of a guarantee accident to D&D, which is a defect-guaranteed business entity, on March 28, 2019, and the Defendant submitted and constructed a defect repair start-up system to the Plaintiff on April 12, 2019.

B. On May 3, 2019, among the defect repair works, the Defendant cut the optical cables buried underground in the ground during the main line string operation in the E-Simhae Kim-si F in the vicinity of the defect repair work.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On the other hand, around January 2017, the Defendant directly performed the construction of the instant accident site as a telecommunications pipe including optical cables, and the Plaintiff changed the design of GNa, thereby requesting the approval of change of the design to the telecommunications pipe.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 or Gap's evidence 5 (if there is an additional number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts and the evidence above, there are many cases where the initial drawings and site conditions differ in the road construction process, and there are many cases where the design drawings and the actual location of optical cables change in the course of the road construction process, so the defendant is obliged to perform the defect repair work by properly examining the location of the optical cable buried in the road construction work, even though he/she has the duty of care to perform the defect repair work by properly examining the location of the optical cable laid underground in the course of performing the defect repair work, and thus, the accident in this case occurred by performing the wheeling work according to the design plan before the alteration without confirming the alteration of the design. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate

However, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the maintenance and management of the motorway, has a duty to accurately grasp the location of the cable and inform the contractor of the exact location of the location of the cable, and the Defendant failed to inform the contractor of the accurate information despite having asked the possibility of construction in advance. The Plaintiff’s error above is also the occurrence of the instant accident and damage.