2019dada 111694 Damage, Appellants

A Stock Company

B Representative Director

Kim Jong-si

January 13, 2021

April 28, 2021

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,65,935 won with 5% interest per annum from October 27, 2018 to April 28, 2021, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten minutes of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,659,358 won with 5% interest per annum from October 27, 2018 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the construction on June 15, 2018 by entering into a subcontract with Nonparty Co., Ltd. for civil engineering works and temporary soil removal (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) among the new construction works of Rap Sports Center on the land of Jin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction works”). (The scheduled date of completion is October 31, 2018).

B. During the instant process, the process of installing the temporary soil gate is as follows (see, e.g., see, 8, an appraiser E).

A person shall be appointed.

C. On October 26, 2018, at around 7:00 a.m., during the completion of the instant construction, water was found out even if the soil view of the instant temporary site flows out of the facility’s surface, and is not friendly on the facility’s floor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s side contacted the Defendant City Water Service on the same day, around 08:00 on the same day, even though he tried to doubt the heat of nearby water pipes, and to diving the valve before the index while on the part of the facility.

D. At around 10:00 on the same day, the Defendant Si’s officer arrived at the construction site of the instant construction and attempted to lock the valves before the index but failed to reach the end of the water work, and subsequently called back at around 14:00 on the same day and made the index valves lock by using the machinery.

E. At the time of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the instant construction work, the installation of the temporary soil gate installed as the result of the instant construction ought to be designed so that it can withstanding strong pressure regardless of the original water-use unit, and such safety devices have not been installed despite the need to be prevented even in the belts of the sloping Team newsletter (see appraisal report). However, as the soil gate, which the Plaintiff’s employee was in need of emergency measures at the time of the initial discovery of water leakage phenomenon, resulted in a change due to continuous water leakage in the morning inside the morning, etc., the Plaintiff’s repair work, such as piling up soil again as the Plaintiff was an emergency restoration work, and the said temporary soil gate, which was installed on the floor of the said facility, caused an accident, such as the sloping beam beam, etc., and the total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff for additional disbursement of the replacement work costs, and is 66,659,358 won (see Plaintiff’s assertion).

[Identification Evidence] Each description or image of evidence Nos. 1-12, 14-19 (including each numbered part), appraiser E’s appraisal result, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant road was caused by the defect in the management of the Defendant’s water-related facilities, since the Plaintiff’s so-called soil-related accident was destroyed due to the defect in the installation of the Defendant’s water-related facilities, in a situation where it is difficult to secure ground stability by leaving the road around the water-supply pipe as it was cut off with string machines by 5 division, cutting off the roads around the water-supply pipe, excavating and partial packaging, and neglecting it as it was, while performing the maintenance work of the water-supply pipe around April 2018.

In this regard, it is not sufficient to examine whether the Defendant divided the surrounding land after the repair work of the water pipe around April 2018 and left it alone after cutting. The images or entries in the evidence Nos. 13 and No. 120 of the Plaintiff’s submission are not sufficient. Rather, according to the images or entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the Defendant’s evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant left it alone in the state of cutting and division. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit.

B. Ultimately, the issues of the instant case are as follows: (a) it is obvious that the defect of the Plaintiff’s temporary soil gate installed in the pressure of water pressure was caused by the change of water-related facilities due to the significant and incidental oil; (b) however, whether the defect of the Defendant’s water-related facilities management exists concurrently or not; and (c) therefore, we examine the issues of the instant case

The appraisal result and any other description of the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 14 and 19

In full view of the opinions of the professional engineers, where the facility of this case was changed, it appears that there was a water leakage phenomenon of the ground continuously where the ground occurred even though it was not well-known before the accident occurred, and the area presumed to be the ground is laid underground. Under the Defendant’s supervision, water supply facilities are under the Defendant’s supervision and supervision. The Defendant actually performed the maintenance and improvement work of the water pipelines laid underground before two months prior to the commencement date of the construction work of this case. Despite the fact that water leakage was incurred in the construction site of this case and the water leakage was coming from the site of this case, and on October 26, 2018, which is the date of the accident of this case, the date of the accident, despite the fact that the water leakage was not clearly seen on the floor, the Plaintiff’s water leakage phenomenon was reduced on the day of the accident, and the water supply facilities were installed immediately adjacent to the Defendant’s person in charge of the emergency restoration work, and the Defendant did not perform all efforts to prevent the Plaintiff’s early spread of the device in this case by failing to cope with the Plaintiff’s situation.

However, the defendant's ratio of liability is limited to 10% of the total amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the change of the temporary earth of this case in the facility.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 6,665,935 won equivalent to 10% of the total costs of the Plaintiff’s total damages and 5% per annum from October 27, 2018, the following day of the accident, to April 28, 2021, which is the date of this decision, and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-hee

A person shall be appointed.