beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 27, 2018, the driver of the Defendant’s 5 ton vehicle (C) with an insured vehicle operated a village of D on March 27, 2018, in a state where the driver of the said vehicle did not come up with the said vehicle.
During that, the processing cable installed and managed by the Plaintiff was destroyed by 2 parts of the Plaintiff’s electric poles, 4 parts of the electric poles were used, and the occurrence of an accident cutting the cables and optical cables (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. In the event of facility damage, the Plaintiff ordered construction works to a collaborative company to implement damage restoration works and settle the case thereafter. The Plaintiff ordered restoration works of the instant accident to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Co., Ltd.”) which is a collaborative company.
C. According to the detailed statement submitted by the non-party company to 34 construction works that had been ordered by the Plaintiff during the period from 2017 to 2018 (Evidence No. 5-2), the construction cost of KRW 71,352,627 (Additional Tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction cost of KRW 8,802,353 are required. Of them, the construction cost of the instant accident is KRW 7,110,679, and the goods cost is KRW 878,869, if it is combined with KRW 7,989,548.
The non-party company issued each electronic tax invoice of KRW 36,22,00 on June 28, 2018 and KRW 35,130,000 on December 35, 2018 on the construction cost of KRW 71,352,627 to the Plaintiff.
E. In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff claimed damages of KRW 7,361,00,00, which is the sum of the construction cost and the goods cost, to the Defendant, and the judgment of the first instance accepted the full amount.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 5-1, 2, and Gap 6-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the grounds for appeal was excessively counted in the recovery cost claimed by the Plaintiff.
The defendant requested F Co., Ltd. to investigate and assess the accident, and as a result, the amount of the person actually required.