1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 23, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant and the Defendant’s laundry to install machinery and install interior works (a total of KRW 5,500,000) at the Defendant’s laundry, and on the same day, paid down payment of KRW 2.7 million from the Defendant, and on February 15, 2016, performed all obligations under the said contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above construction balance amount of KRW 2.8 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant paid not only the construction cost of KRW 2.85 million ( KRW 5 million on January 23, 2016, KRW 2.5 million on January 25, 2016, KRW 150,000 on the same month, KRW 28,000 on the same month, KRW 29,000 on the same month, and KRW 29,00 on the same month) among the construction cost of KRW 5,50,000 on the above construction cost, but also the Defendant spent the expenses to repair the said construction cost upon the existence of a large number of defects.

In addition, due to the above defect, the defendant suffered mental damage, and thus, he should be paid consolation money from the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 of the construction cost for the construction of machinery and the construction of interior equipment in the defendant's laund and the defendant's laundry around January 23, 2016, and the performance of its obligations. The defendant may recognize that the plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 2.85,00,000 in total to the plaintiff from January 23, 2016 to January 29, 2016. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The evidence presented by the defendant as to the defendant's assertion alone is insufficient to recognize that there exists a defect as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is rejected on a different premise.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant delivered a written application for payment order to the plaintiff with KRW 2.50,000 and the following day.