1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased the building of the Cheongdo-gun C and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant factory”) to run the construction business and manufacturing business, etc. at the same time, and the Defendant runs the construction business under the trade name of “D.”

B. On January 2016, a fire occurred in the instant factory, and the entire roof and walls of the instant factory were destroyed by fire.

On April 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of the board for the repair of the roof and wall parts with the Defendant, and determined the construction cost of KRW 12 million and provided the Plaintiff with the materials of the board, and agreed that the construction will be entrusted to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract” and the said construction work is referred to as the “instant construction work”).

On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased each prefabricated title from F to 26,644,490 won (excluding value-added tax) from E Co., Ltd., and supplied it to the Defendant by purchasing each of the PVC title from F to 1.27 million won (excluding value-added tax) from F on April 28, 2016. The Defendant completed the instant construction by using the said materials around that time.

On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,350,00 to the Defendant the instant construction cost.

On October 5, 2016, there was an accident that some of the wall board of the factory of this case located far away from the alley due to a typhoon (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion of the parties did not construct a exhaustr and a caps at the V concluded at the board while executing the instant construction.

Since the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence in the above construction, the defendant is liable for warranty of the contractor under Article 667 (2) of the Civil Act or damages due to incomplete performance of the obligation under Article 390 of the Civil Act.