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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the

No. 3, the “working design (time of supply for reporting starting works)” refers to the “working design (time of supply for reporting starting works)” as “time of supply for working design (for reporting starting works).”

No. 3, from the first to the third day, the Defendant issued the said money, and demanded the Defendant to pay the said money on the same day.

No. 4, from the first to the second, the “Evidence No. 1” of the 6th sentence is deemed to be “Evidence No. 1 to 4, 7, 11 through 14.”

No. 8, 1 of Paragraph 1, "the result of partial entrustment of appraisal to A" is "the result of partial entrustment of appraisal to A of the first instance certified architect A".

2. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment that the trial in question additionally determines is dismissed as “C. 11” of the judgment of the first instance, and the following is added thereto:

C. According to the instant service contract purporting to the Defendant’s argument regarding the rescission of the instant service contract, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the “price (20% out of the total service cost) to the Plaintiff within one week after receiving the loan from the contractor.”

However, since the defendant did not receive a loan from the contractor, the time to pay the above service costs has not yet arrived, the defendant's duty to pay the above service costs is not in the relation of simultaneous performance with the plaintiff's duty to perform the design service.

Rather, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to review the design change on the excessive problem of the underground area of the parking lot from the time of the instant service contract, but the Plaintiff did not perform this at all.

In addition, the defendant does not obtain a resolution or approval at the board of directors and partnership meetings.