1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal and appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 2008, the Plaintiff purchased a track (a model name: ASEAN MF6465, hereinafter “instant machine”) from the Defendant’s agency.

B. The Plaintiff used the instant machine to perform work, and on October 30, 201, the back wheel of the instant machine was destroyed on the left side of the instant machine.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 30, 201, at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, 201, when the back wheel wheel of the back wheel of the instant machine was destroyed, the employees of the Defendant’s agency B and the Defendant’s business office confirmed the Plaintiff’s destruction of the instant machine at the Plaintiff’s work site, and agreed to compensate for the instant machine as it was destroyed without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff requested “C” operated by B to repair the instant machine, and the Plaintiff claimed repair cost of KRW 11,357,260 for repairing the instant machine.

3) In addition, the destruction of the instant machinery makes it impossible for the Defendant to proceed with the instant work, and from October 31, 201 to November 2, 201, it entrusted D with work to disburse KRW 8,280,000 for work costs. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the repair cost and work cost of the instant machinery ( KRW 19,637,260 for KRW 19,637,260 ( KRW 8,280,000 for KRW 11,357,260) and damages for delay.

B. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the cause of damage to the instant machinery was caused by the defect in the machinery itself, or that the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for damage caused by the damage of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this premise is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is justified.