1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, who sold agricultural machinery, etc. with the trade name called “C,” to install a memorial d major D large 657 square meters on land in Jung-gu, Incheon.

In the process of its installation, the defendant asked the plaintiff to get off the electric wires above, and the plaintiff asked the plaintiff to get off the wires above, and the defendant set up the pipe in a telet. The defendant set up the next electric wires by setting up the pipe, and set up them up in a set.

As a result, the Plaintiff, who saw the pipe with the upper stone coming, was at the center and fell below the retaining wall of 3-4 meters from the center (hereinafter “instant accident”), and suffered injury, such as an alley-thring, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total of KRW 2,024,450 and KRW 7,024,450,000, which the Plaintiff spent due to the instant accident, as damages.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion was E is selling the Gosawing machine to the plaintiff, and the defendant only attempted to build the Gosawing machine upon E's request.

While the plaintiff cited the top as a balth, the defendant only deducteds electric wires from the defendant, but the center of the plaintiff mixed balth, without holding the center of the plaintiff mixed balth, fell under the retaining wall.

In other words, the defendant is irrelevant to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

2. It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s act solely with the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The witness F of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s wife, testified to the effect that all of the instant accidents were observed, and that the circumstances were the same as the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the witness E of the first instance court had heard and out of the Defendant’s outer invasion that he was “understanding” in the warehouse at the time of the instant accident to the seller of the high-sloping season. At that time, F did not appear at the site, and later at the home.