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 Plaintiff is a person who operates a restaurant in the name of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building and a restaurant on the first floor of Yongsan-gu, and the Defendant is a person who operates a facility company specializing in washing sewage holes, etc.

B. On November 26, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to excavate the place where the instant sewage hole was cut off due to the concentration of reflow; (b) around November 26, 2016, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant sewage hole”); and (c) requested the Defendant to do so.

The defendant estimated sewage through a sprinklering water and decided the price of KRW 150,000.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On November 26, 2016, according to the instant contract, the Defendant was resolved through the drilling of the sewage plant by drilling the instant sewage plant. On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to drilling the instant sewage plant free of charge to the Defendant, who had caused a re-influent phenomenon of re-influence.

On November 29, 2016, the Defendant, free of charge, intended to excavate the sewage of this case, and suspended work on the ground that sprinking, which is the Defendant’s equipment that entered the sewage pipe, was omitted while drilling work for drilling the sewage of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the recognition of the occurrence of default liability, the Defendant did not perform the work of drilling the sewage of this case and the sprinking did not perform its function. Accordingly, the Defendant is deemed to have failed to fully perform its obligation.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance.

3. Calculation of damages;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay for damages, since the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,400,00 to E who operates F in order to remove the sprinkling in the instant sewage plant.

fact that the damage has occurred.