1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity for C Trucks (hereinafter “instant truck”), and the Defendant is a company that operates telecommunications business, etc.

B. Around 16:00 on June 15, 2017, while driving the instant truck and passing through the apparatus apparatus apparatus apparatus apparatus apparatus set up in the Bosong-si Korea Electric Power Corporation located in Bosong-si, Bosong-si (hereinafter “instant telecommunications line”), the said truck was damaged by the electric poles and adjacent street lamps, etc., on which the instant telecommunications line was supported, while caters installed in the instant truck put on the communications line set up in the Defendant’s place (hereinafter “instant communications line”).

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

By September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,794,540 in total as the cost of repair for electric utility.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6-12 or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant neglected to install and maintain the instant communications line at a height of not less than 5 meters from the ground in accordance with the relevant statutes, and neglected to do so, thereby neglecting the status where the instant communications line increased to not more than 3.9m, which is the height of the instant truck.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the instant communications line, and is liable for paying KRW 3,794,540 to the Plaintiff who subrogated for the said amount of damages.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant established and maintained the instant communications line above the level required under the relevant laws and regulations, and there is no defect or negligence in the installation and preservation of the instant communications line.

Rather, D operated the truck of this case with the truck loaded with the string while carrying the freight, and neglecting the string time. Thus, the accident of this case was entirely caused by D’s negligence. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The structure of installation or preservation of one structure with a height of legal standards for the communications line of this case is the structure.