2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the interior works of the Defendant’s franchise store (hereinafter “B”) store in Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, as follows. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the said construction works on September 19, 2014 on the construction period of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works (including value-added tax) to KRW 70,1280,00 won (including value-added tax) to KRW 49,500,000 after the completion of construction.

Nevertheless, the Defendant merely paid the Plaintiff the indoor construction cost of KRW 49,50,000,000 for the outdoor construction cost, but did not pay the said cost after the lapse of the agreed payment date ( October 18, 2014, which was after the date of the completion of construction). Therefore, the Defendant is seeking the payment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Article 9 of the franchise agreement entered into between D and the Defendant, the Defendant’s river C franchisees, provides that “The store interior cost shall be completed at the expense of the franchisee.” In the instant case, the parties that entered into the construction contract with the Plaintiff are the said D and the Defendant merely served as a broker for the interior company and as a broker for the payment of the construction cost from D and delivered the Plaintiff with the payment of the construction cost. However, in order to prevent the unity and delay of the interior, the contract holder was merely the Defendant. Therefore, the obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff is also borne by D. Accordingly, there are a number of defects in the Plaintiff’s construction part, and the construction cost should be reduced to the extent that the damages incurred therefrom.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion can be acknowledged as it is.

Therefore, the Defendant’s construction cost of KRW 49.5 million due to the Plaintiff’s outdoor test and its payment date ( October 19, 2014) to the delivery date of the complaint ( October 8, 2015), 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act.