The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 220,000 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the company “C”, and the Defendant is the owner of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D apartment and E (hereinafter “instant family room”).

B. As water leakage occurred in the vicinity of the boiler rooms of the instant case, the Defendant requested a business entity, “F,” which became aware of the result of Internet search, to conduct a water leakage inspection, and the Plaintiff visited the said head office on December 24, 2018.

C. After examining the boiler room of the instant bank room, the Plaintiff explained to the Defendant that ① water leakage was discovered on the lower part of the boiler at the bottom of the boiler, ② the Defendant appears to have been generated from the heating pipeidine located within the instant bank room, and ② the Defendant was likely to know the exact location of the stoke, and the water leakage was generated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written estimate and contract (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”) with the following contents: (a) the instant contract is called “the instant contract; and (b) the contract is thus concluded.”

1. Expenses for water leakage inspection (verification of water leakage pipes and specification of water leakage pipes), 200,000 won;

2. Costs of water leakage works (verification of the location of water leakage and work for repairing) 2,00,000 won;

4.As a result of the water leakage inspection, we shall pay the water leakage inspection cost even if there is no error in the household pipes.

5. Where it is impossible for the Corporation to cover the costs of water leakage detection during water leakage works, it shall not be claimed.

7. All costs are the value of supply, whichever is separate.

After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff: (a) identified the boiler room floor as a water point; and (b) sold the floor using the equipment, which was not a water point.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff performed the work of replacing heating-related pipeline parts at the lower bottom of the boiler and heating-related parts at the lower bottom of the kitchen.

F. The Plaintiff explained to the Defendant that the clothes of the instant heading room were valuable at a single point, and subsequently visited the Defendant again by setting a later schedule.