1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for water leakage (hereinafter “instant construction”) for toilets referred to in subparagraphs 202 and 302 of the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Building C (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant building”) and agreed on the method of construction as KRW 9.5 million.

B. Around December 20, 2016, the Defendant performed the water leakage construction for each of the above toilets, and the Plaintiff paid the construction price of KRW 950,000 to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Even after the construction of the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted, the number of toilets in each of the above cases continues to exist. As the Defendant did not complete the construction of the instant case, it should return the construction cost of KRW 950,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the facts that the water leakage of toilets No. 302 of the instant building continues even after the construction of the instant building was completed, and the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to conduct a water shooting method, taking into account the fact that five years have not passed since the construction of the instant building was newly constructed.

However, the following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Defendant, via Nonparty D’s assertion that the Plaintiff was his agent in the process of concluding the instant construction contract, explained the Plaintiff’s “detailed waterproof method” to remove the entire bathing room floor by means of toilet water leakage, and that there was a “crating waterproof method” to capture the amount of waterproof on the existing toilet floor, and re-eroding the sound between the floor and the water tank and the water tank, and that the construction cost ( approximately KRW 2.8 million) according to the precision method exceeds the construction cost ( KRW 1 million), and ② the Plaintiff’s cost is low.