1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into a contract for transportation of 880,000 won with the Defendant carrying on the transportation business, but the Defendant received additional expenses of 40,000 won, without any contractual basis, and the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to KRW 5,593,400 in total for the expenses of moving part of the removal to the house outside the house to be directors and the damages of KRW 5,593,40 in total for the expenses of moving the removal to the house outside the house to be directors and the loss of the removal.

The defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and delay damages to the plaintiff as compensation for damages due to default.

(b) Evidence 1, evidence 1, and evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In full view of the purport of each of the entries and arguments, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on August 16, 2014, under which the Defendant would pay KRW 8,80,000 to the Defendant for expenses of directors instead of packing and arranging the Plaintiff’s transfer of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the body on August 17, 2014. In the process of moving this article on August 17, 2014, the Defendant demanded additional expenses of KRW 400,00 to the Plaintiff and suspended transportation of the article; the Plaintiff promised to pay, and paid KRW 1,288,00 to the Defendant after the Plaintiff promised to transport the article continuously to the Defendant; the fact that the Defendant left part of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the article to the warehouse and parking lot, which are not a new director, is recognized. 2) First, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages as to the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s additional expenses.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay additional costs of KRW 400,000 and the plaintiff promised to pay them.

Therefore, the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are deemed to constitute nonperformance of the obligation to demand the Defendant to pay the above additional cost of KRW 400,000.