1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is against the preliminary defendant Sung Ho Construction Co., Ltd.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where the "this court" in Section 3, 12, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, is deemed to be a "court of the court of first instance". Thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant North Korea-gu

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the cause of the collapse of the retaining wall of this case was revealed to be the defect in the construction process, it was agreed that the contractor shall repair the defect on the part of the contractor and shall bear the construction cost in the case of natural disasters. According to the A’s service report, etc., which provided services to identify the cause of the collapse of the retaining wall of this case and to establish reinforcement measures, the cause of the collapse of the retaining wall of this case was revealed to be natural disasters. Thus, the Defendant North Korea is obligated to pay the Plaintiff repair construction cost in accordance with the above agreement.

Preliminaryly, even if the above agreement is not acknowledged, the collapse of the retaining wall of the instant reinforced soil was caused by a natural disaster caused by typhoons, etc. or by a dial scarg, which was a reinforced material provided by Defendant North Korea-Gu. Despite the absence of the Plaintiff’s duty to repair, the Plaintiff completed the repair work. As such, Defendant North Korea-gu should return the amount equivalent to the above remuneration construction cost to the Plaintiff

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 10 and 11 as to the primary argument, i.e., in a case where the cause of collapse of the retaining wall of this case was revealed to be natural disasters, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that Defendant North Korea made an agreement to bear the repair cost, and the cause of the collapse of the retaining wall of this case by Defendant North Korea was revealed.