The burden of risk in the event that the Cheong-do structure has been destroyed by natural disasters before delivery;

If the clean structures were destroyed by natural disasters before delivery, it is obvious that they belong to the burden of denial by the agency, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 536 and 632 of the former Civil Act

East Asia Construction Company

Song Jong-man Association

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4291 Civil Joints58)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's request and incidental prosecution are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff at the first and second instances.

The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second trials and the judgment dismissing incidental public prosecution.

The plaintiff's attorney is dismissed in this case. The costs of the public prosecution are assessed against the defendant. The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment is revoked as the incidental purport of the public prosecution and the costs of the public prosecution are assessed against the defendant. The defendant pays 4,230,000 dollars to the plaintiff. The defendant is asserting that the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second instances.

The Plaintiff’s de facto statement is the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff entered into the contract with the Defendant 2 for a short-term of 4290.5.27, and the construction charges were set at 5,80,000 if the Plaintiff were to be paid to the Defendant at the end of 7 years, and the construction costs were to be paid at the end of 0.30,000,000 that were to be paid at the end of 9,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2-2 of the evidence No. 1, and 3-1, 2-2 of the evidence No. 1, and 3-2 of the above evidence at the trial of the court of original instance and sought an examination of Non-party No. 3 witness at the trial of the court of original instance, and used testimony No. 1, 3, and 4 of the witness No. 1 through No. 21 of the court of original instance, and acknowledged only the establishment of evidence No. 1, 4, and 5 of the evidence No. 1, and submitted evidence No. 9 through No. 21 at the court of original instance, and submitted evidence No. 1, 4, and 5 of the evidence No. 1 to Non-party No. 1, and No. 2 of the evidence No. 6 of the court of original instance. 7.

On May 27, 290, the parties concluded a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on June 30 of the same year with the date of completion of 5,800,000 Cheongyang Construction Project as of June 30 of the same year and the date of completion of this case. Although there is no dispute, first of all, the parties shall consider the contents of evidence No. 9 through No. 21, No. 5, and No. 6, each evidence No. 9 and No. 21, and the purport of the defendant's oral argument, and all of the contents of evidence No. 9 and No. 21, which are alleged by the plaintiff, as of whether the portion of the intermediate construction project was delivered to the plaintiff's assertion, and the testimony No. 2, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 3-2 of the witness No. 9, which were submitted as a proof, is not consistent with the facts that the plaintiff had delivered the portion of this case to the court below.

Then, the plaintiff provided a double conference required for the construction of this case at the defendant side, and the plaintiff used it in a three-dimensional manner, which constitutes a gold 435,000 won, and thus, the plaintiff claims the payment. However, the non-party 1 testimony of the court below, which seems consistent with this, cannot be done at its principal source in the fact that the plaintiff is an employee and the non-party 3 testimony of the court below, and there is a testimony corresponding thereto among the non-party 3 testimony of the court below. However, according to the copy of the register of the plaintiff company attached to this case, the plaintiff was registered as a master at the time of the establishment of the plaintiff company (short-term 4285 Sep. 16, 4285) and it can not be confirmed that the plaintiff was in office again on Jan. 31, 4289 and was in office until now at the expiration of the term of office. Thus, the non-party 1's testimony of the defendant union at the time of conclusion of this case is a representative of the contract with the defendant association, and it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the fact that the portion of the construction project in question was lost due to the storm in August 2, 4291 is not a dispute, and if Article 14 of the evidence No. 1 (this contract) which was known by the defendant as to the risk burden, the defendant recognized the establishment of the risk burden and used for profits, Article 14 of the evidence No. 1 (the contract of this case) provides that the damage caused by the cause not attributable to Gap (the defendant's geographical name)'s responsibility for the damage caused by the storm in the preceding paragraph shall be borne by Eul (the plaintiff's name). In addition, even though there is no provision, if the defective structure was destroyed due to the natural disaster before delivery, it belongs to the burden of denial unless there is any special circumstance, it is clear under the law on the burden of danger. Therefore, if the damage caused by the Cheongcheon Corporation is to be borne by the plaintiff due to the fact of the contract or by the law or by the law of this case before delivery, the damage caused by the Cheongcheon Corporation is to be borne by the plaintiff.

In the case of this case where there is no evidence of evidence, etc. which can reverse the previous recognition, the construction cost under the premise that the defendant delivered the part of the original construction work and the claim against the total amount of 4,230,000 dollars which the defendant cannot bear. Thus, it is unnecessary to judge this point. Thus, the judgment of the court below that there is a different result is justifiable, and it is obvious that the incidental prosecution of this case is without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is delivered with the order by applying Articles 384, 386, 96, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Hak-Jin Park Jin-Jak (Presiding Judge)