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

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties and the execution of the construction of this case 1) The plaintiff is entered into the c apartment 203 (hereinafter referred to as the "number of houses") in the Gu government city.

(2) On July 2016, 2016, the number of water leakages in the columns of the 103 103 inner and inner bathing rooms, each of which was below the 203th floor, and in the ceiling of the living room.

3) At the request of the owner of the house in 103, the Defendant, a construction business operator, diagnosed the cause of water leakage from July 8, 2016 to August 1, 2016, and determined that the floor of the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the 203rd to August 9, 2016.

B. 1) After the construction of the instant case, the Defendant promised to provide the instant service, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant construction cost of KRW 1 million to the Defendant on August 24, 2016. 2) However, even thereafter, there were more damage to water leakage under 103, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff’s intermediate part of the columns in the inner gate 103, the water was released on the wall outside the inner gate, and the water was spread out on the front part of the inner gate 103, and the water was aggravated, and the leakage of the columns in the inner gate 103 was aggravated.

3) Accordingly, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant visited again on September 5, 2016, but did not find the cause of leakage, and returned to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff provided that “I would have no choice but to have any choice but to pay money if the Plaintiff made a false report to another business entity.” 4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff asked another business entity around September 5, 2016, which affixed the same seal, of the Plaintiff. Around 203, it was diagnosed that the pipes of the room room, which were not the floor floor of the kitchen No. 203, were dried, and no longer than 103, after completion of the construction works to prevent leakage of pipes.

5 On Oct. 1, 2016, the inner door mold No. 103, 103, Habnisher.