1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Kimpo-si Seoul apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Defendant is a person who manufactures and supplies the furniture, such as Washington, in the trade name of “E”.

B. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff started the interior interior decoration construction of the instant apartment from May 8, 2018 under the plan to move into the instant apartment.

On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff consulted on the establishment of a household with the Defendant.

On May 12, 2018, the Defendant issued a written estimate to the Plaintiff, which contains a main household (Wook, upper board, air conditioners, token) of KRW 2.260,00,00, indoor wards of KRW 330,00,00 and KRW 2.330,000,000.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the establishment price of the above main household at KRW 2.8 million around this time.

When the defendant sends part of the down payment to the plaintiff, he notified the account number and the amount to be deposited (one million won) in the scheduled work of ordering the substitute stone and foundation.

On May 16, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted one million won to the Defendant as down payment.

On May 17, 2018, the Defendant could not proceed with the contract to the Plaintiff, and returned the down payment of one million won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, whole purport of oral argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion was at the same time demanding a premium in relation to the length of the model of the trucking that the Plaintiff had demanded before the contract (900m) and unilaterally notified the Plaintiff to proceed with another company.

As a result, the plaintiff paid money to the public corporation in charge of other processes by demanding a certain extension, entered into a contract for construction with another public corporation as an amount higher than that of another public corporation, and suffered losses incurred by adding the housing expenses and management expenses that had been resided before the occupancy due to the delay in occupancy.

The defendant's unilateral reversal of contract causes damage.