1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,850,000 and shall also pay to the plaintiff on October 2018.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The reasoning for this part of the court’s determination on the instant defense is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the lower court’s 9 to the 4th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion G prepared the written confirmation of this case that it would damage the repair of the E-conditioner pipe pipe pipe in which water leakage occurred on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to perform the repair work several times, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost for E-conditioner pipe pipes. Even if G who prepared the written confirmation of this case does not have the right to represent the defendant, the defendant indicated that G granted the right to repair the defects, etc., or the plaintiff believed that G was the right to prepare the written confirmation on behalf of the defendant in relation to the repair of defects, and there was a justifiable reason to believe that it was the right to prepare the written confirmation on behalf of the defendant in relation to the repair of defects, the defendant bears the responsibility to pay the above expenses for the repair of defects. (2) The defendant's assertion of this case was prepared individually by G, and the defendant did not grant the right to represent in relation to the preparation of the written confirmation, and therefore the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the above expenses to the plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination as to whether the Defendant’s obligation to repair defects occurred, the fact that the Defendant Southern Center G vice-head of the Defendant Southern Center G, who is a person in charge of the repair of defects, prepared and issued the instant written confirmation to the Plaintiff on April 26, 2016 that he/she will perform the repair of defects in the leakages of air conditioners buried in the wall installed in the ward’s room, first of all, as seen earlier.