1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 1,130,000 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall be fully repaid from July 14, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a restaurant “C” (hereinafter “instant store”), and the Defendant is a person engaged in interior fishing.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 32,565,000.

C. The term “air conditioner 32 square meters” (hereinafter “air conditioner”) is included in the installation of air conditioner 32 square meters (hereinafter “air conditioner”). Of the construction cost, the term “air conditioner 2,00,000 won” is included in the construction cost.

Around May 2015, the Defendant completed construction work, and the Plaintiff paid the construction cost to the Defendant at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the air conditioner in the instant case did not perform its function despite several repairs, because the air conditioner is frequently broken and the air conditioner does not function in air conditioners.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred by installing the air conditioner of this case, which is not equipped with the quality ordinarily in the transaction, due to the failure to perform the incomplete obligation, and is liable to pay damages equivalent to KRW 11.30,000 for the repair cost of the air conditioner of

B. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 13 through 16, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser D, the air conditioner of this case is a product manufactured in August 2001, it is found that the air conditioner of this case was discovered such as reduction of air conditioners, deterioration of parts due to long-term use and deterioration of functions, reduction of performance due to the attachment of large quantity of foreign substances by the heat exchanger, and the above facts are stated in Eul evidence No. 4, and some testimony by witness E of the party examination.