1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in the assembly and manufacturing of parts of electronic equipment at a factory located in Kimhae-si D (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff factory"), and B is a juristic person that used main works such as melting, sculpture, brick, sloping, sloping, etc. for the purpose of manufacturing parts of shipbuilding equipment at a factory located in the vicinity of the plaintiff's factory from February 2003 to February 2005 (hereinafter "the defendant factory"), and C is a juristic person that purchased the defendant factory and its site from B on February 20, 207.

B. C leased the Defendant factory to B from May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008. From November 2008, C received orders from the Defendant to engage in the work of reinforcement and reconstruction of the Defendant factory, and operated the Defendant factory by awarding contracts for thought, tolerance, entertainment, and strawing work to F and G, which are the outsourcing company, after performing the work of reinforcement and reconstruction of the Defendant factory.

C. On October 12, 2009, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit seeking compensation for damage on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s employees suffered from diversified dryfrying and corrosioning the roof of the Plaintiff’s factory in the process of scattering metal dust generated from the Defendant’s factory was scattered into the Plaintiff’s factory, and that the Plaintiff’s employees suffered health damage.

(Seoul District Court 2009Gahap10195). D.

The Changwon District Court partially recognized the plaintiff's liability for damages in B and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim in relation to C, but it judged that C's liability is not recognized in accordance with the result of the appraiser I of the first instance trial's appraisal that "the former is generated in the process of water damage while the latter is different from the process of generation because it was generated in the process of water damage," as a result of the analysis of dust collected from the plaintiff's factory and the home through the home through the house with rainwater.