1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 15, 2017, the Defendant used the Damo E in the permanent residence operated by the Plaintiff as a guest, and colored the Defendant’s head car in the above E as a chroman.

B. After that, the Plaintiff reported the damage of property to the police on the ground that the Defendant’s use of chloud drugs contaminated the guest room, and the report on the damage of property was made to the police, and the report on the report on the above reported case contains the following contents:

① The details of the Plaintiff’s report are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s use of fluorous fluorous drugs was 605,000 won in estimation of repair costs by spreading fluorous drugs in the remote area of the E heading room, gluor, tables, chairs, and bathing rooms.

(2) Part of the wall in the form of a point of size of a block in which flaps are protruding or protruding, and some of the table and bathing rooms are far away.

(3) It is difficult to recognize an intention for damage.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 3, Gap 4-1 to 8, Eul 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant contaminated the equipment of the guest room in the course of using chromosome drugs. The plaintiff is liable to compensate for the total amount of 5,003,50 won [1,853,500 won for the interior work + 150,000 won for lost income (50,000 won per day x 3 days) due to failure to conduct normal business for 3 days + 3,000 won for consolation money].

B. According to the above facts of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant committed an illegal act that pollutes equipment with chlographs while using the Domo E guest room, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by such illegal act.

C. First of all, the determination of the amount of damages is based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the following: (a) the examination of the interior work cost and the claim for lost income; and (b) the degree of contamination caused by the use of dystye drugs as seen earlier.