1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with C on the structural construction of the E church in Si/Gunsan-si D (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C to lease temporary materials, such as water pumps, and leased temporary materials such as water pumps over several occasions.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1-1, 10, and 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant construction was suspended and completed, and the Defendant agreed to directly operate the construction, and the Plaintiff additionally leased the installed parts, such as the load to the Defendant. As the Defendant returned the damaged load, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damaged load due to nonperformance as a party to the said additional lease agreement, or the Plaintiff’s employees cut the load of the instant construction site, or the employees of C destroyed the above load. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages due to tort.

B. The defendant's assertion C completed the construction of this case without any rupture from the construction of this case, the defendant did not lease the pump from the plaintiff, and the construction of this case did not excessively cut the pump and used it, and it cannot be deemed that C is responsible for supervising the return of the pump leased by C. Thus, the defendant is not liable to compensate for damages due to default or tort.

3. Determination

A. On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that C had taken over the construction site of this case and that the Defendant succeeded to the lease contract between the Plaintiff and C, and that the Defendant directly leased the temporary property, such as the water pumps, to the Defendant thereafter. However, the Plaintiff asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 14, Eul’s evidence Nos. 14, 10, 14, 15, 17 through 19, 21 through 24, 27 through 30, 31, 31.