1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

(a) basic facts.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells building materials under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in interior business under the trade name of “D.”

B. On April 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the interior repair work of F Housing located in F in the Republic of Korea from E for the cost of construction KRW 29.1 million.

The construction work includes the installation of a scrink, and the installation of a scrink was to be selected by E.

C. On June 24, 2018, the Plaintiff and E sent the down payment of KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant account upon the Plaintiff’s request. D.

On June 25, 2018, the Defendant drafted a written contract for the installation of a model for the following contents (the “written estimate” is printed with the title of the evidence A No. 1, but the upper part of the document is written with a written “contract” in hand.).

On-site name: The name of Gerck * upper board: Indones * aftermad: Borrowing * Indones : 2.2 million won (=the balance of down payment KRW 1.5 million) construction schedule: June 29, 2018.

On June 30, 2018, the Defendant carried out a sing to the construction site for the installation of the singings, but the Plaintiff and the dispute surrounding the singings defects occurred, and returned to the construction site.

F. The Plaintiff sent a number of calls to the Defendant for return to the Washington, but did not communicate properly, on July 28, 2018, brought the Washington to the Defendant’s office in the future, and posted a notice informing the return thereof.

[Reasons for Recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1-22, the witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a phishing installation contract with the Defendant and paid down payment of KRW 1.5 million.

However, there were many defects, such as the fact that the Defendant had been holding at the construction site does not stand, and the fact that the intermediary falls off, and the Plaintiff.