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

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

A. The Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s land and its ground land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”) in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and resides therein. The Defendant is a company that received a supply of the D-based multi-household construction project (hereinafter “instant construction”) in connection with the Plaintiff’s housing.

B. The Defendant subcontracted the instant construction to E (hereinafter “E”), and E was appointed from around 2016 to June 2017 as the site manager of the instant construction, and performed the instant construction, and completed the construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 6 through 8 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was: (a) closed two manle, which was on the access road to the Plaintiff’s housing (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) by newly packaging the access road to the Plaintiff’s housing while performing the instant construction; and (b) increased the volume of the access road by 20 centimeters; (c) thereby, there was a flood damage, such as rain, and drained water, to the end of the Plaintiff’s housing.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the employer of F, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 5 million, which is equivalent to the construction cost per head of the Plaintiff’s house.

B. In light of the fact that the construction of this case was subcontracted by the Defendant, F, who was the site director of the construction of this case, was an employee of E, rather than the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant specifically directed and supervised F with respect to the construction of this case, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the Defendant as the employer of F, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is the same.