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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who performs interior works under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant was a person who leased the 1st floor of a building located in D’s Y-gu, Busan from May 22, 2015 to Haman on August 2015.

B. On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for interior construction (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to the first floor of the instant building by determining the construction cost of KRW 11 million (1.8 million in contract amount and KRW 9.3 million in remainder). The Defendant paid the down payment to the Plaintiff on the date of the instant construction contract.

C. Since then, the Defendant completed the interior works on the first floor of the instant building in accordance with the instant construction contract.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to claim against the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation in this case from January 1, 2016 to September 7, 2016, which is the date when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the following day to the date when the original copy of the instant payment order was served.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that since the construction cost of the instant construction contract is KRW 11.3 million, the Plaintiff should additionally be paid KRW 300,000,000 in addition to the above recognized amount, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Rather, as seen earlier, the construction cost of the instant construction contract is KRW 11 million.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment were made by deceiving G operating the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office to conclude the instant construction contract, and the defendant also concluded the said contract.