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 reason why the court should explain this part of the basic facts is that "the lease contract was concluded" under the second 9th judgment of the court of first instance, and "the lease contract of this case" is "the lease contract of this case".

AB concluded this chapter

"In addition to the dismissal, it is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim (1) ① The Plaintiff was fully bound by an agreement with the Defendant at the construction site of this case, and thus, all responsibility for managing the temporary materials leased from the Geum River (hereinafter “the instant temporary materials”) was transferred to the Defendant, such as checking the quantity of the temporary materials leased from the Geum River.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to verify the quantity of the above provisional materials in the process of using and returning them. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,000,000 for the total amount of KRW 26,582,191 as well as damages for delay thereof, and paid KRW 6,60,00 for the attorney’s fee to respond to the above lawsuit.

② Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 33,182,191 (i.e., the price for the temporary materials of this case and the delay damages therefrom, together with the payment for the said provisional materials, KRW 26,582,191, the attorney appointment fee of this case, KRW 6,600,000) and the damages for delay

(2) Even if it is not recognized that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for direct construction, the Defendant manages the Plaintiff’s business on the management of the instant temporary materials on behalf of the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff was completely removed from the construction site of this case, and the Defendant manages it according to the ordinary duty of care required for the office manager under the Civil Act.