Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "No assertion exists as to the fact that the defendant's tort cannot be deemed to have been caused by the defendant's tort, and that the defendant has a duty to return the execution cost to the plaintiff" in subparagraphs 3 through 5 of the first instance judgment " cannot be deemed to have been caused by the defendant's tort. The plaintiff, even if the defendant agreed or consented to extend the deadline for delivery of the store of this case by the beginning of May and at least April, 1, 2014, a compulsory execution was conducted on April 1, 2014, and its execution cost should be paid unfairly and thus, the execution cost should be returned to the plaintiff. However, the statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 8 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on extension of the deadline or that the defendant implied consent was given, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit."