1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration (hereinafter “instant bus”) of the bus exclusive for the South and North Korea Arts Foundation (hereinafter “instant bus”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 45,000,000 and the construction period of KRW 40-50.

Since then, the Defendant moved the instant bus around the end of December 2015, caused an accident that she faced with the aspect of the instant bus (hereinafter “instant accident”). In relation to this, the Defendant was obliged to commission the Plaintiff in money, instead of doing so, by responding to the Plaintiff’s awareness that he did not go to death, and that he did not go to gradb and did so, thereby suffering from mental pain.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay.

In addition, the plaintiff could not operate the bus of this case for about seven months until the date of filing the lawsuit of this case as well as the accident of this case, because there are a large number of defects in the construction of this case. The defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages, and the amount of damages is 25,90,000 won, which is the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in leasing the bus of this case from the rental enterprise.

2. Determination

A. The determination of the claim for consolation money is ordinarily made on the part of the claim for consolation money and the mental damage caused by the ordinary property damage shall be recovered from the compensation for property damage. In full view of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff suffered a serious mental damage to the extent that it is impossible to compensate the plaintiff for the property damage

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, committed an influent act, such as blocking the Plaintiff from receiving mental impulses beyond the level of contesting the trial cost regarding the instant accident.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

B. The bus of this case is as follows.