2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 56.5 million against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for the design of a block-type detached house of reinforced concrete structure of the third underground floors C, 239 million won (in case of a contract separate from value-added tax, KRW 23.9 million at the time of submission of a plan design document, KRW 47.8 million at the time of submission of an interim design document, KRW 71.7 million at the time of submission of an execution design document, KRW 23.9 million at the time of completion of approval for use).

B. After receiving interim design documents from the Defendant, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit through D of a construction office that concluded a delegation contract for the construction permit, etc. on May 27, 2015, without excluding the Defendant from the working design phase, and received the building permit from the Defendant on July 3, 2015. The same year from February 5, 2015 to the Defendant.

9.1. up to 9.1. A total of KRW 86.9 million was paid.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff, around the other hand, is liable to compensate for damages because the defendant, without a certified architect's qualification, deceives the plaintiff to enter into the above design contract, thereby deceiving the plaintiff, and thus, he shall be held liable to compensate for such damages. ① The above design contract was concluded by deception by the defendant who misrepresented the certified architect, or by mistake by the plaintiff who misleads the qualification, and ② the above design contract with the defendant who is not an certified architect who is not an authorized architect necessary for supervision is completely impossible to perform supervision, and thus, the above design contract with the defendant is null and void because it is retroactively impossible to perform supervision, and thus, the defendant is liable to return the above price by unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to KRW 86.9 million.

At the time of conclusion of the above design contract, the defendant entered into the contract with the knowledge that the defendant is an architect without qualification, and the building permit based on the defendant's design.