1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 4,942,580 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from January 6, 2017 to August 29, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 31, 2016 to January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff had been issued a hotel accommodation right (hereinafter “instant hotel accommodation right”) from the Defendant and paid the full amount of the accommodation expenses in advance to the Defendant when requesting the Defendant to make a hotel reservation, and around October 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a hotel accommodation right (hereinafter “instant accommodation right”). The main contents are as follows.

- The name of a hotel: BHETL (hereinafter referred to as “the hotel in this case”); - Physical / physical creamout: January 6, 2017 (number of accommodation days: total of 6 gambling days) - Two (total of 6 persons: six persons) - the status of reservations: finalized.

B. On December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s children, and six parents of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s children”) arrive at the Republic of Korea on December 31, 2016 at the latest (23:15) on the day on which they board the aircraft, and thereafter arrive at the instant hotel on January 1, 2017 (01:55) and presented the instant accommodation right at the place.

However, the Plaintiff responded from the staff in charge of the Front that “I cannot provide accommodation because there is no reservation for the Plaintiff’s daily operation, and there is no room to remain at present.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as an emergency contact network stated in the instant accommodation ticket, contacted the Defendant’s local employees, and went to C (hereinafter “alternative accommodation”) by guiding local employees.

However, there was only one room remaining even though the two rooms were required for the plaintiff Pharmon, and there was no room for lodging in a substitute room due to the lack of a swimming pool, and the plaintiff Pharmon returned to the hotel of this case again.

The content of the Defendant’s reply to the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 9) includes that “the Plaintiff’s behavior has returned to the hotel of this case because there are only one room in the substitute accommodation.”

As a result, while the Plaintiff was aware of the place of accommodation again, the Plaintiff’s home at the hotel staff of this case excluding the first 2 gambling (from December 31, 2016 to January 2, 2017) during the original schedule 4 hours (from January 2, 2017 to January 6, 2017).