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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the part concerning a claim for meal costs, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired after the extinctive prescription of meal costs claim asserted by the plaintiff.

The claim for meal costs constitutes a claim for food service charges of restaurants under Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and thus, one-year extinctive prescription period is applied. Since the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 16, 2016, which was one year after the expiration of the period from July 30, 2013, the end of the period during which the Plaintiff provided meals, is apparent in the record, the claim for meal costs had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

The defendant's defense is justified.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant promised to pay the meal cost to the plaintiff immediately before the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the extinctive prescription of the above meal cost claim was interrupted by the acceptance of the debt even before the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

However, there is no evidence to prove the above facts of the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's second defense is without merit.

B. The plaintiff's claim for damages caused by the plaintiff's tort is determined.

Since the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted by recognizing the plaintiff's claim for the payment of meal costs, this court examines the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the tort selected by this court.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant had a duty to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff since he/she deceivings the plaintiff without the intention to pay the meal cost.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court is also the Plaintiff's above evidence, considering the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this court.