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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff experienced the problem of water leakage in the room room and the safe toilet, and requested repair to the Defendant. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s house and recommended the replacement of the safe toilets.

On the same day, the Plaintiff remitted 200,000 won to the Defendant as the above repair cost down payment.

B. Around July 11, 2018, the following day, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s house to perform the repair of the room toilets and the replacement of the inner urinals. At the site, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to install an air conditioner with the Plaintiff’s mother.

On the same day, the Plaintiff remitted the remainder of 300,000 won for repair, 150,000 won for installation of air conditioners, and 65,000 won for value-added tax on each of the said money, and 515,000 won for total.

C. However, the Plaintiff’s mother refused to install air conditioners and did not install air conditioners, and the Defendant returned KRW 150,000, out of the money remitted from the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the above facts acknowledged as Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, and 2's video and statement, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defects occurred in the safe change change work that the defendant conducted by the defendant. As a result, the plaintiff paid KRW 250,000 to the plaintiff for replacement of the safe change change work, the defendant must pay the above KRW 250,000 and the damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 250,000 for replacement expenses for the safe change change of the living room due to the repair of the defendant's toilet. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also sought the return of the value-added tax amount equivalent to the toilet construction work.