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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a franchise agreement with H, Inc., a franchisor, and sought to operate the restaurant “D” in a space of approximately 12 square meters located in Jinju City C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s workplace”).

B. On November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with the Defendant, a construction business operator, who is the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration designated by the E franchisor, for which KRW 2,868,00 have been determined as the construction cost, and entered into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff’s workplace (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The Defendant performed the construction work.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 (including a paper number), Eul evidence 6 and 7 video, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the construction cost of this case is KRW 28.68 million, and the Defendant calculated the estimate of the construction cost which is unfairly higher than that of other companies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the difference between the reasonable construction cost and the reasonable construction cost.

In addition, even though the defendant agreed to the construction period under the construction contract of this case for 10 days, the construction was delayed for about 3 months or 5 months, and the plaintiff suffered losses that the plaintiff could not operate during that period.

The defendant did not perform the construction work according to the specifications and did not install part of the interior items, and did not perform the construction work using the pre-existing clothes covered with combined board. The defendant's defective construction work does not discharge smoke in the interior rearde of the plaintiff's place of business, and defects occurred, such as the defendant's defect repair request was made.

The plaintiff suffered losses that the plaintiff could no longer operate normally due to such defects.

The amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff not only is the damage caused by the improper and improper conduct, but also is derived for six months from November 2014 to April 2015.