1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims added by the Plaintiff in this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the facts of recognition and the argument of the parties in the first instance is the same as that of the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (2 to 3 pages 10). Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's grounds for appeal added at the trial;

A. The Plaintiff awarded 80,700,000 won to the Defendant at the interior cost of the instant shopping mall.

Therefore, the delegated part specifying the amount is limited to the delegation contract for interior works, and it is not delegated to the specific amount for the purchase of equipment.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 52,00,000 in total to the Defendant (the Plaintiff claimed that the amount paid for the purchase of equipment at the lower court was KRW 42,00,000,000, which was the sum of KRW 10,000,000, which was the remainder of the purchase price of equipment omitted in the trial, and added KRW 10,000,000, which was the remainder of the purchase price of equipment omitted in the first instance). This is only the amount paid as a result, but does not have concluded a delegation contract with the Plaintiff specifying the total amount of KRW 52,00,000 from

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 45,532,000 won (=52,00,000 won - 6,468,000 won) which is the difference between the amount paid as the purchase price of equipment (52,00,000 won) and the appraised price of the equipment (6,468,000 won).

(Plaintiff) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with only the part concerning the delegation contract for the purchase of equipment. (3)

It is logical and unreasonable that the first instance court did not recognize the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle while recognizing the delegation contract.

Since the defendant did not perform his/her duty under the delegation contract properly, he/she shall compensate for damages incurred thereby.

3. Determination as to the establishment of delegation contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the defendant violated the duty of care in good faith

A. The establishment of a delegation contract does not exceed a delegation contract for the purchase of goods and equipment necessary for the manufacture of goods and equipment necessary for the Defendant and the Dossssss to operate the said goods for the sole purpose of the operation of the said goods in the instant commercial building.