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

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the request of Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff performed a painting construction work, floor cement construction work, and floor-to-date construction work from October 25, 2014 to December 20, 2014, “E restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) located in Seocho-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On the other hand, on December 19, 2014, the Defendant brought an even the door of another restaurant to the instant restaurant, and ordered the Plaintiff to carry out the construction of even painting in KRW 2.5 million, and the Plaintiff completed the construction on the same day, and delivered a door even to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay 2.5 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the construction cost should be reduced by 1.5 million won, since the plaintiff did not properly tamp up the door and the defendant had a defect in the construction work again, etc.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is any defect in the construction work performed by the plaintiff, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff, as part of the instant restaurant painting construction, floor cement construction, and floor width construction, directly operated the instant restaurant interior construction by the Defendant, and C, on behalf of the Defendant, ordered the Plaintiff to do so, and thus, the Defendant, as a party to the instant contract, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 7,991,00 in total the construction cost.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 directly operated the restaurant of this case by the defendant.

A lack of recognition that C had entered into a contract with the Plaintiff as the defendant's representative is the defendant's responsibility.