1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant contracted the Defendant’s interior repair work for the factory in the Chungcheongnam-nam Budget-gun C to the Gangnam Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gangsan Industry Development”).

B. The development of the mountain industry leased the excavation season (hereinafter “instant excavation season”) from the Plaintiff in order to arrange the inside of the above factory.

C. In accordance with D’s instructions, which is the site manager of the development of the river industry, E adjusted the digging season to set the drums containing main and inflammable substances on the floor of the above plant. On May 31, 2014, around 14:55, a fire occurred in which the flames caused by the clicker’s clocks on the floor and the sprinks on the floor were protruding with inflammable substances on the floor (hereinafter “the fire in this case”). The instant fire destroyed part of the sprinks of this case.

The Plaintiff disbursed 22,355,430 won in total, including 20,505,430 won in repair costs and 1,850,000 won in towing costs in order to repair the cater of this case.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 11 (including paper numbers), witness E and D testimony (except for the portion rejected after each of them), the fact inquiry results against the chief of the budget department of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are that the defendant, a contractor, ordered and supervised the work of internal adjustment of the factory, and the defendant, as joint tortfeasor, is obligated to pay 22,35,430 won and damages for delay incurred by the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor to the plaintiff. However, the witness E and D's testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant directed and supervised the industrial development or E in relation to the progress and method of internal adjustment of the factory, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.