beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from October 19, 2016 to April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was undergoing the procedure from the Defendant to the point of view; (b) the Defendant decided to complete the procedure before an explanation in 2017 (from January 27 to 30, 2017); (c) but at the beginning, the Defendant had completed the procedure after the completion of the procedure in violation of the agreed period and lost one for the procedure after the completion of the procedure; and (d) was erroneous in the course of the procedure in violation of the agreed period; (b) the costs of the procedure already paid to the Defendant as compensation for breach of the obligation and incomplete performance (i.e., KRW 2,290,000 for damages (i.e., KRW 2,560,000, KRW 530,000, KRW 640,000, KRW 6000, KRW 640,000 for food and drink damages; and
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments written in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit, even though it is recognized that the Plaintiff had undergone an operation from October 19, 2016 to April 14, 2017, 200, for which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to complete the operation before the explanation of 2017 (i.e., January 27 to 30, 2017).
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments written by Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the plaintiff suffered the above procedure from the defendant, and it is acknowledged that only about 5 months have passed after the plaintiff went through the above procedure, one upper structure among the powderes is abandoned. However, the defendant is dissatisfied with the purport that the excluded upper structure can be re- attached and used, and the non-performance of the procedure is not recognized. The above recognized fact alone cannot be viewed as an incomplete performance, and there is no other evidence to support that the defendant's error in the procedure of the defendant's crypt, etc., is not justified without any need to further examine the remaining part of the argument by the defendant.
3. Conclusion