1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant Hyundai Embs Co., Ltd., Korea Electric Technology Co., Ltd., and Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.

1. The underlying facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part are as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (No. 3, No. 11 to No. 8, No. 9) except that the “damage” was used as “damage”, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Formation of liability for indemnity; and

A. Article 67(2) of the Civil Act, which is a provision on the warranty liability of the contractor for the warranty liability of the defect liability part, provides that the contractor may claim damages in lieu of or together with the repair of the defect if there is any defect in the completed part of the work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da70337, Aug. 20, 2004). The warranty liability under the above provision is a strict liability particularly recognized by the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7037, Aug. 20, 204). The right to claim damages in addition to the repair of the defect should, in principle, be deemed as damages in order to compensate the imbalance between the remainder of the work and the repair after the improvement of the defect. Therefore, the claim for damages against the business loss sought by the Plaintiff exceeds the scope of damages under Article 667(2) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the premise that the liability for damages under the above provision is established due to the defect or the construction of this case.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the accident of this case is presumed to have occurred due to the defect in the manufacture or installation of the power generator of this case.