1. It is against the part against the defendant (appointed party) in the judgment of the court of first instance which orders payment below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western apartment No. 1201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned the instant apartment by itself E, and the sale of the instant apartment was made on December 17, 2014 due to voluntary auction, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day. The Selection C completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2, 2015 on the instant real estate on the ground of sale as of March 19, 2015.

B. On June 18, 2015, upon G’s request from G residing in the instant apartment, the Plaintiff prepared a written estimate that sets the construction cost of KRW 5 million (hereinafter “the instant estimate”) with respect to the repair work for the leakage of water generated from the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant construction”) and performed the instant construction from June 19, 2015 to June 20, 2015.

C. On December 2015, the Defendant, who is the third village of the Appointor C, was handed over the apartment of this case and resides in the apartment of this case from that time.

【Ground for recognition】 1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had delivered the written estimate of this case to the defendant and the selected party C through G, who is the former lessee of the apartment complex of this case, and then had heard the phrase "the defendant and the selected party C would proceed with the construction work of this case" from G, and the defendant would directly proceed with the construction work of this case to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant and the selected party C agreed to pay the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff, and therefore, they are obligated to pay the construction cost of this case five million won and delay damages.

B. (1) Determination (1) The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the respective entries in Gap 3 and 5’s judgment as to the claim against the defendant and the purport of the entire pleadings, and ① the defendant’s delivery of the apartment of this case was around December 2015, and the plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s contact information prior to the several months prior to the delivery of the apartment of this case.