1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 1-2.

The Plaintiff is a person running a business, such as the repair of building defects, and the Defendant is a person operating the Damoel located in Nam-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant cartel”).

B. After receiving the Defendant’s request, from around September 2015 to December 2015, the Plaintiff visited the instant Moel from around December 2015, and discovered the cause of water leakage by 204-204 of the second floor. On December 7 to 8, 2015, the Plaintiff performed the work of cutting off and detecting water leakage on the upper floor of the 204 upper floor of the instant Moel 204, thereby replacing three auxiliary tank valves and restoring the bottom to its original state.

C. Even after the Plaintiff’s completion of the above repair work, water leakage phenomenon occurred again, and the Defendant requested another construction business operator to perform the water leakage construction of the said construction work on the said part of the construction work and other parts of the said construction work, the water leakage phenomenon stopped.

The defendant did not pay the above construction cost to the plaintiff up to now.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion completed repair works on December 8, 2015, and the water leakage phenomenon thereafter occurred from other old pipelines due to the pressure pumps. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 700,000 (the sum of the construction cost of KRW 600,000 and KRW 100,000 per annum 2 per annum) and the delay damages therefor. (2) The Defendant’s assertion is obligated to make the Defendant’s repair construction works without any further water leakage by accurately detecting the water leakage point at 204,000 for the second floor of the instant case.

However, even after the Plaintiff’s repair work, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The above facts of recognition.