용역대금 청구의 소
The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that is engaged in the civil engineering and building business, etc., and performed the construction of a 15 parcel of land, including Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, by being awarded a contract for the construction of a 15 parcel of land (hereinafter “instant site”). The Defendant is a corporation that newly constructs a wing house in the instant site and newly constructs and operates a wing house in the name of “D”.
B. Of the instant site, the river up to 3 meters in width, 1.5 meters in depth, and 175 meters in total length (hereinafter “the instant river”) was included in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si. In order to execute the construction of waterway stay work (hereinafter “instant construction”), the authorization to change the instant river to a gambling waterway (hereinafter “authorization to revise the urban planning project implementation plan,”) was required.
C. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with respect to the instant application for the change of KRW 44,000,000 with respect to setting the service cost of KRW 44,00,00, and entered into the instant application for the change of G for the permission of the change (hereinafter “instant service contract”). D.
On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant 2 service contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff conducts advisory services (such as design direction, design feasibility review, etc.) by setting the service cost of KRW 22,00,000,000 with respect to the application for change of the H architect design office and the application for change of the instant case.
E. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the instant service contract and the drawing for authorization and permission, which is the result of the relevant service, to the Defendant as an official document (hereinafter “instant official document”). On the same day, the Defendant sent an official document to the Defendant, along with the above authorization and permission drawings received from the Plaintiff, regarding whether it is possible to approve the instant authorization and permission.
F. The Defendant, around April 14, 2016, has a drawing for authorization and permission received from the Plaintiff.