1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) installed five crime prevention windows, consisting of two shooting guards on August 30, 2012, and three shooting guards on October 1, 2013, located in Ulsan-gu, the Plaintiff’s residence; (b) Nam-gu, 104 Dong 101, and 101.

B. As above, the Defendant installed a crime prevention window in the Plaintiff’s residence, and issued a letter of guarantee with the following contents (hereinafter “instant letter of guarantee”).

The guarantee period of intrusion prevention guarantee: The guarantee period of intrusion prevention is three years from the date of installation: the amount of theft damage (based on the calculation amount of theft damage by the competent police station) at the head office up to two million won when external intrusion occurs to the location where the head office is installed.

C. On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff received a report on damage from the Ulsan-nam Police Station to the effect that “the Defendant stolen the property equivalent to KRW 11,700,000,000 in cash within the swine storage machine” with the following purport: (a) the offender destroyed the crime prevention window by an influorous tool and intrudes the Plaintiff’s residence inside the Plaintiff’s residence; and (b) the 1.2 million won in cash inside the swine storage machine.”

At the time, the status of the crime prevention windows installed in the Plaintiff’s residence (hereinafter “the instant crime prevention windows”) is as follows: (a) the Defendant collected and installed a new crime prevention windows in the Plaintiff’s residence; and (b) the aforementioned photographs 1 was taken by re-ttaching the cut crime prevention windows at the time of the on-site inspection of the Party; (c)

The form of the cutting part of the crime prevention window of this case (hereinafter “the cutting part of this case”) is as follows.

1 Photographs 2

E. The Ulsan Southern Police Station conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff’s damage report for about three months, but failed to discover the crime of the same water law, and the fact of the sale of stolen goods claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be confirmed, and thus, did not arrest the offender.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, and 15-2, the result of the on-site inspection of the party in question, the result of the party in question D's appraisal.