All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

claim. The purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) each of the “kping” of the corresponding parts of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the corresponding parts, except that the respective “kping” is different from each of the corresponding parts; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to non-performance of contractual obligation under the contract for the determination of the principal claim regarding the principal claim, concluded a contract on cutting and melting Aluminium plates to fix rubber sprinking, which connects rubber sprinking to the Defendant’s rubber sprinking, which shows oil steam in the tank seen in the instant vehicle.

The defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred while the defendant was engaged in the contact work to complete the work received from the plaintiff.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence and arguments as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the provision of free labor between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim, which was filed on a different premise, cannot be accepted.

According to Article 664 of the Civil Act, a contract of work becomes effective when one of the parties has agreed to complete a certain job and the other has agreed to pay remuneration for the result of such work.

The expression of intent to pay the remuneration should be implicitly possible, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remuneration to the Defendant only by the fact that the Defendant, a merchant, performed the work requested by the Plaintiff.