1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 209, 2009, Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd., a construction contractor of the apartment complex C5 apartment complex and six apartment complex apartment complex (in sequence, “five apartment complex” and “six apartment complex apartment complex”, and the five and six apartment complexes, collectively referred to as “each apartment complex of this case”), among five members, including the Defendant, who are joint representatives of the occupant countermeasure committee of each apartment of this case, are deemed to have been the occupants of five apartment complexes and the remaining two members, including the Defendant.

The council of occupants' representatives at the time agreed to install food treatment equipment in each apartment site of this case. While the council of occupants' representatives at the time was already constituted around June 2009 by the defendant as the chairperson, the council of occupants' representatives at the five apartment complexes was not yet constituted.

(B) was constituted around August 2010, 1 year.

After that, on January 1, 2010, the Defendant was the representative of the occupants of each apartment of this case, and had the Plaintiff manufacture and installation of food treatment equipment. Accordingly, on February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant on March 5, 2010 with the content that the Plaintiff would produce and install ten food treatment equipment within the garbage site of each apartment of this case for manufacturing and installing KRW 143 million for the food treatment equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff intended to install the remainder nine remaining nine units, excluding one food processing machine for the operation of the test, within the garbage site of each apartment of the instant apartment after completing the production by the end of March 2010. However, the Plaintiff’s installation was deferred due to the extreme opposition to the installation on the grounds that the occupants of each apartment of the instant apartment of this case were in an excessive amount of electricity, malodor, noise, etc. as revealed as a result of the test operation.

After that, between the defendant on April 7, 2010, the plaintiff additionally 10 electronic display boards between the plaintiff and the defendant.