I am afraid to say this, but there are more than three mistakes.
First of all, 서울 식당 is used too many times, although it is not a grammatical mistake. Even if 서울 식당 is a name of a restaurant, the repetitive use of proper names for places seems clumsy. You may use 이 식당, 그 식당, 그곳, or 거기 in place of 서울 식당. Nonetheless, it is advisable to avoid using pronouns (그곳 and 거기) repetitively.
Now, let me examine all the sentences. There are four people involved in the paragraph: one is the writer, and the others are 지훈, 미에코, and 서울 식당 아저씨. The writer mentions what 지훈 and 미에코 did.
지훈 씨는 서울 식당에 가 봤어요.
Nothing is incorrect here.
A. 서울 식당은 일식집이에요.
B. 특히 비빔밥이 아주 맛있어요.
C. 그래서 미에코 씨한테 서울 식당을 소개해 줬어요.
A lot of things should be considered:
If 서울 식당 is a proper name, Sentence A is grammatically correct; if 서울 식당 refers to a/the restaurant in Seoul, it is logically incorrect.
There are no clear reasons that Sentences A and B should be placed here in the paragraph, as they express what the writer thinks not what 지훈 thought. If you are not going to remove both Sentence A and Sentence B, it is one option to connect Sentence A to Sentence B; you might say "서울 식당은 일식집인데 특히 비빔밥이 아주 맛있는 곳이에요." However, this complex sentence does not relate to Sentence C.
In Sentence C, there is no explicit subject. "Who did it?" You could assume that 지훈 introduced the restaurant to 미에코, but you should note that the previous subject is 서울 식당 [Note: 비빔밥 is kind of a sub-subject here] unless you remove Sentences A and B. "그래서 지훈 씨는 미에코 씨한테 서울 식당을 소개해 줬어요." will clearly show the subject, but Sentence C itself has insignificant problems without Sentences A and B because the repetitive indication of the same subject for consecutive sentences is usually avoided in Korean. Nonetheless, using Sentence C leaves a possibility that the writer (not 지훈) told 미에코 about the restaurant.
You cannot simply remove Sentences A and B because the following sentence of Sentence C mentions 비빔밥. If you would like to erase them, you have to use part of Sentence B somewhere before mentioning 미에코.
So, what would be a possible correction including the first sentence in the paragraph? I will mention only three as follows, but others' corrections could be better:
지훈 씨는 서울 식당에 가 봤어요. 그 식당은 일식집인데 특히 비빔밥이 아주 맛있는 곳이죠. 그곳 음식이 정말 맛있었는지 지훈 씨는 미에코 씨한테 그 식당을 소개해 줬어요.
지훈 씨는 서울 식당에 가서 비빔밥을 아주 맛있게 먹은 적이 있어요. 그래서 지훈 씨는 미에코 씨한테 그 식당을 소개해 줬어요.
지훈 씨가 서울 식당이 어떤지 얘기해 준 적이 있어요. 그 식당은 일식집인데 특히 비빔밥이 아주 맛있는 집이라더군요. 그래서 저는 미에코 씨한테 서울 식당을 소개해 줬어요.
Please be aware that those three have totally different meanings. You should rewrite the summary according to the original text.
Here, another sentence comes.
미에코 씨는 비빔밥이 먹고 싶어서 서울 식당에 갔어요.
"How does it relate to the previous sentence?" For cohesion, it will be clever to add when she wanted to eat 비빔밥 or other information. The following are two (but not the only) options:
- 미에코 씨는 식당 추천을 받은 뒤에 비빔밥이 먹고 싶어서 서울 식당에 갔어요.
- 그 후에 미에코 씨는 비빔밥이 먹고 싶어서 소개받은 식당에 갔어요.
비빔밥 두 그릇을 시켰어요.
"Who did this?" There is a possibility that the writer ordered 비빔밥, but it is far more likely that she ordered the food.
There are some options to improve the sentence:
하지만 서울 식당 아저씨는 "하나 더 시키세요"라고 말했어요.
Four points I can point out:
- 하나 더 시키세요 is a sentence quote. It is advisable to place a period at its end, although it is allowed to omit a period there.
- It is difficult for me to judge whether 하지만 is correct, but I would use 그런데 instead.
- I feel it somewhat rude to call a male person 아저씨 although some people use it. I would use 주인 or 사장 instead if he is an/the owner; 직원, if he is an employee.
- If you would like to keep 아저씨 here, it will be better to erase 서울 because the reader(s) now knows what the restaurant is.
So, I would put it as
- 그런데 식당 주인은 (미에코 씨에게) "하나 더 시키세요."라고 말했어요.
- 그런데 식당 직원은 (미에코 씨에게) "하나 더 시키세요."라고 말했어요.
To have more corrections, you may visit Lang-8, but you should not trust all the users; some of them do not care much about grammar.
I have noticed that the current rules allow the omission of the period at the end of a sentence quote. Accordingly, I have edited the relevant line.