용역비
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company running indoor interior interior interior interior fishery business, indoor construction business, design service business, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation running C University.
B. On July 17, 2012, the employee D in charge of Defendant Construction requested the Plaintiff’s representative E to send a design service draft to the Plaintiff Company E to the Plaintiff Company for a plan to improve the environment of the buildings, such as the future creation hall, etc. within the said University.
C. On July 18, 2012, E visited the above school to confirm, take photographs of, and received the drawings of the above building from D, an administrative officer and future creative center building that will be the object of the construction by guidance, such as D.
Based on the above photographs and data, the Plaintiff prepared a design draft for the environmental improvement work and sent it to D on July 26, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the design and design of the environmental improvement project planned by the Defendant have been completed in accordance with the design service contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of 28,715,612 won and damages for delay.
The fact that the plaintiff prepared a draft design for environmental improvement work and sent it to the defendant's side at the request of D, who is an employee of the defendant, is as mentioned above. However, the following circumstances are as follows, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 5, i.e., ① is an employee of the defendant corporation, and there is no right to enter into the design service contract of this case, and the plaintiff requested the preparation of the draft plan in the notice of the execution plan of the construction work. ② The plaintiff was well aware of the defendant's internal decision-making or execution procedure in light of the fact that the plaintiff concluded the design contract with the defendant around July 201 and performed the construction work.