1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Chungcheong City C and D (hereinafter “instant housing”), and the Defendant is the person who operated the interior business in the name of “E”.

B. On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a Rotterdam construction contract with the Defendant for the instant housing with the construction cost of KRW 23 million, and thereafter, the Plaintiff incurred KRW 1.5 million for the additional construction cost during the Rotterdam construction process.

C. Around October 2016, the Defendant completed the instant interior works, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 21 million as the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 17, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole voice and pleading

2. Determination

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination that there were defects in the instant construction works, and sought payment of damages for the said repair, the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination added to the whole purport of the arguments in the Health Control Group, the evidence as seen earlier, and the statement in Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 12, and 14 (including the number of branch numbers) to the entire purport of the pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that there was a defect in failing to implement the removal of the housing ceiling according to the construction contract and the construction of the single heat, and thereby, the Defendant avoided my fung in the dwelling room, bank, bank, small bank, bank, kitchen, back beer, and the fung in the instant housing due to the determination of the present hall, and the cost of the expense of KRW 8,943,00 (including value-added tax

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is with merit.

The plaintiff asserts that the construction is needed to re-establish the door and the window because there is a defect that does not coincide with the horizontal plane of the door and the window, and there is a defect that does not fit the corrective device of the door and the window, and that the cost is required in total of 1,200,000 won, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone needs to re-establish the door and the window.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the cost reaches KRW 1,200,000, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.