2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person whose business purpose is to operate freezing facilities, freezing applied equipment, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person that manufactures, processes and sells fishery products, distributes fishery products, etc.

B. On March 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a consulting agreement with the Plaintiff on February 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant consulting agreement”) with respect to the instant processing facilities for fishery products to be installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant processing facilities”) to provide the Plaintiff with drawings, specifications, estimates, and specifications of facilities necessary for business plans and free contract, and to pay 15.4 million won (including value-added tax) with the fees.

C. By March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted the facility drawings, specifications, specifications, specifications, and specifications with respect to the instant processing facilities to the AArchitect office designated by the Defendant.

On March 5, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1 through 15, Gap evidence 7-1 through 6, Gap evidence 8-1 through 4, Eul evidence 8-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above by the Defendant’s liability, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 12.4 million after deducting the already paid KRW 3 million from the fees set forth in the instant consulting business agreement.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant did not designate the plaintiff to provide services under the consulting business contract of this case at the A architect office.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not provide the service to the defendant.

In addition, the service provided by the Plaintiff is irrelevant to or insufficient to the consulting business contract of this case, so it cannot be said that the Plaintiff provided the service.