1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement between Nonparty A and Nonparty A to operate the “Dau Pu Pau Pau (hereinafter “instant store”) store located in the unit B of Ansan-si (hereinafter “Sau Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa P, and ordered the Defendant to execute the construction, such as the interior of the said store (However

(b) from the following day:

On January 17, 2012, A filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff in the Suwon District Court for damages against the Plaintiff on the signboard, interior water, internal heat, etc.

(2012dada 100494, litigation proceedings following the filing of the above lawsuit shall be referred to as "previous lawsuit" from the following date.

According to the appraiser D's appraisal of the previous lawsuit in the previous lawsuit, since the space of the lower part of the signboard at the time of the construction work in this case was not closed properly, the inside emulation was polluted due to the inflow through the above space. There was a defect caused by an error in the selection of materials or erroneous construction in the construction work, such as the crack of the inside wall of the shop, the opening and closing of the main entrance, the defect in the opening and closing of the door door, and the defect in the signboard painting, and the repair cost of the defect such as the above pollution level and the defect (hereinafter referred to as "the defect in this case") is 9,234,633 won in total.

On December 4, 2012, the plaintiff (the defendant in the previous lawsuit) filed an application for the notice of lawsuit against the defendant in the previous lawsuit, and the above court sent the notice of lawsuit to the defendant twice on January 8, 2013 and on the 17th day of the same month, and the second notice reaches the defendant on the 22th day of the same month.

E. In the previous lawsuit, the above court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation as follows:

(Plaintiff A and the Defendant is the Plaintiff of this case). 1. A

The plaintiff on February 28, 2013 to the defendant.