1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,098,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a gas station in F of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam, along with the owner of DCoC’s car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. The Defendant-authorized Military Forestry Cooperatives contracted to the owner of the G building in Chungcheongnam-gun, the roads of the said station, and to the Defendant B the roof repair works of the said building in KRW 13,557,500.

Defendant B subcontracted his painting work to Defendant C in the amount of KRW 10 million.

C. Defendant C carried out painting operations on August 29, 2016, and Defendant C caused damage to the surface of the instant vehicle due to painting.

In order to repair the above damage, the repair cost of KRW 841,50 and the repair cost of KRW 256,500 are spent during the repair period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, and 8's statements and images, appraiser H's appraisal results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Requests against the defendant military forestry cooperatives and B;

A. In general, since the relevant legal principles do not relate to the direction and supervision between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor does not be liable to compensate for illegal acts committed by the contractor or his employee.

(Article 757 of the Civil Act). However, in the case of so-called labor contract such as the case where a contractor orders a contractor to perform a specific act or contracts a specific project, the contractor is liable to compensate as an employer even if he is a contractor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.).B.

Judgment

In examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to find that Defendant C had a labor contract for performing painting works under the direction and supervision of the Defendant Military Forestry Cooperatives or the Defendant B, and therefore, Defendant A is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Defendant-authorized Military Forestry Cooperatives and B.

3. In addition to the purport of the entire evidence duly admitted prior to the claim against Defendant C.