용역대금 지급청구의 독촉
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.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in design business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a business entity that allows its franchisees to operate a franchise store related to food and beverage in the trade name of “B” and supports and educates its business management, business activities, etc. and receives the fees therefor.
B. On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a design service contract for interior (hereinafter “instant service contract”). According to the above contract, the Plaintiff concluded a design service contract for interior art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art, art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art art Art. 1(C).
C. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 8750,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 22, 2018 under the instant service contract.
On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the planning design service pursuant to the instant service contract, and submitted the design proposal for the basic design to the Defendant on March 6, 2018, and the average unit price was KRW 2.47 million.
Since then, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff submitted revised and submitted the revised and revised unit on March 12, 2018 and March 27, 2018. The average unit price was KRW 2,350,000,000, respectively.
E. On March 28, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the result of the basic design to the Defendant, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to perform the construction work on the ground that the ordinary unit price of the basic design is too high.
F. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a meeting on April 9, 2018 in order to discuss this issue, but did not find any agreed point.
Since then, the Plaintiff did not perform the instant service contract any longer, and the Defendant also.