1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and all of the images and arguments as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was obligated to pay 2,00,000 won at the repair cost upon request of the defendant for repair of 400 tons presses machines around July 2016. Accordingly, the plaintiff completed repair of the above 400 tons presses around August 2016. In addition, the plaintiff is recognized to have performed the work of additional 3,00 tons of repair cost for the above 3,00 tons presses machines at the defendant's request, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of 2,60,000 won for repair cost of each of the above s presses and damages for delay.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that: (a) as the owner of the above 400 tons presses mechanical repair cost of KRW 1.7 million, the Defendant already paid the repair cost of KRW 1.7 million, a D using the trade name “C” as its owner; (b) the Plaintiff’s repair cost of the above 400 tons and 300 tons presses was not normal repair; and (c) the Defendant was liable for damages equivalent to KRW 1.6 million against D due to the Plaintiff’s defective repair; and (d) the Defendant was liable for damages equivalent to KRW 1.6 million due to the Plaintiff’s defective repair; and (e) the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the said repair cost to the Plaintiff.

① The Plaintiff received KRW 1.7 million from D, the owner of the above machine, in the process of repairing the press machine 400 tons presses. However, according to the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the above KRW 1.7 million was the money that the Defendant received from D for the purchase of used parts necessary for repairing the press machine, and was paid to the Plaintiff for KRW 2 million as agreed by the Defendant.