1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B5 tons of truck owned by A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On May 1, 2014, around 14:30, A loaded cicks on the instant vehicle and was proceeding on a road located in Ansan-si, a member loaned 461-22, an accident occurred where the said cicks cut the above telecommunications cable on the wind required for the telecommunications cable owned by the Plaintiff-owned by the said cream and damaged the telecommunications cable installed (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Based on the recognition] The statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the instant accident occurred while operating the instant vehicle at a height exceeding four meters from the ground in violation of the operational safety standards under Article 39(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 22 subparag. 4(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; or (b) the instant accident occurred while operating the instant vehicle without properly verifying the communications cable owned by the Plaintiff installed on the road where the instant accident occurred, in violation of the duty of safety driving, such as the duty of electric watching.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the instant vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the expenses incurred in restoring the telecommunications cable and telegraph, etc. destroyed by the Plaintiff to its original state, and the damages incurred therefrom.

B. Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, whether A caused the instant accident by negligence, such as negligence in violation of safety standards for operation at the time of the instant accident, or negligence in violation of the duty of safe driving, such as the duty of prior watching, etc., is insufficient to recognize the foregoing by only the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Accordingly, A's.