용역비
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons why the court should explain this case are next to the 7th judgment of the court of first instance.
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the result of inquiry into facts" in Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the result of inquiry into facts" in Section 19 of the judgment, "the result of the appraisal conducted by the appraiser B of the court of first instance, the result of entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser B of the court of first instance", and
The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is to add each part of the claim, and the judgment on the new argument made by the defendant in the trial is as stated in the following 2.1.
【The primary design drawing is submitted at the time of the application for approval of the Geumcheonpo general industrial complex plan, the two-lane design drawing is submitted after the completion of consultation with the related agency, and the completion design drawing is submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions with the three-lane industrial complex. The final service performance drawings to be submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant pursuant to the instant service contract are the completion design drawings. Since the Plaintiff failed to submit the completion design drawings to the Defendant, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the service price equivalent to approximately 40% of the amount of the base value, which the Plaintiff performed by the Plaintiff on April 7, 2011, at the time of suspending the service work.】
8) It is reasonable to deem that the design service is completed on the basis of the public notice on approval of the plan for the general industrial complex as to the completion of the Plaintiff’s design service pursuant to the instant service contract. On March 15, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the time when the Plaintiff completed the Plaintiff’s design service is based on March 15, 201, the design drawing submitted to the Defendant on April 7, 201, is mostly identical except for some types of work, compared to the design drawing finally submitted to the Seoposan Co., Ltd. on March 15, 2013. As such, the design drawing submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is the complete drawing.