용역비
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the plaintiff's main claim and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. Since the defendant filed an appeal only against the main claim among the judgment of the court of first instance, the object of judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's main claim.
2. Basic facts
A. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to develop appsing services (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the development cost of KRW 14 million and the contract period from November 10, 2015 to January 20, 2016.
On November 10, 205, the Plaintiff started to develop apps.
B. On November 23, 2015, D, an employee of the Defendant, sent the changed app Development scenarios to the Plaintiff.
C. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff sent app files developed to the Defendant by e-mail.
D On January 28, 2016, upon requesting the Plaintiff to add the contents of the app developed by the Plaintiff, agreed to pay the service cost of KRW 1.5 million in addition.
On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the app file revised to the Defendant, and registered apps developed in the App Market.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
3. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff completed the app development on February 5, 2016 and performed its obligations under the instant service contract. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 11.5 million (= KRW 14 million - KRW 4 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 24, 2016 to the date of full payment after the duplicate of the complaint of this case is served.
As to this, the defendant did not complete the app development and completed the development.
Even if the contract period is not complied with, the defendant did not pay the service cost.
The defendant's materials according to Gap evidence No. 1.