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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment asserted that, on November 2014, the repair cost of KRW 1,740,000 and damages for delay should be paid, since the Plaintiff received a request for two repairs from the Defendant, and completed their repairs.

The defendant entrusted the plaintiff with two repairs of the framer, completed the repair and replacement of the Belgium, Belgium, and the part of the erokeer, and the cost of which is equivalent to KRW 240,000,00, while the defendant is the person who is the defendant, it is not sufficient to accept the repair scope and the cost of which are higher than the repair scope, only the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed payment calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 15, 2015, which is the day following the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, to July 7, 2016, the date of imposition of a substantial amount of the Defendant’s complaint as to the existence and scope of the instant performance order, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above mentioned amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation portion is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed