1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The gist of the party's assertion is that the plaintiff selectively extended the construction period due to the defendant's fault, and the plaintiff as a resident supervisor was not in charge of other design or supervision until the completion of the instant construction work. As such, the defendant has a duty to compensate for damages equivalent to the plaintiff's architectural remuneration incurred during the extended period as liability for damages due to nonperformance, and the defendant has a duty to return that amount because he obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the building remuneration incurred by the plaintiff during the extended period without any legal cause, and the supervision period has been extended to approximately one year due to the defendant's fault, so the first supervision fee should be increased to the amount equivalent

As to this, the Defendant agreed to pay the extended amount of KRW 20,00,000 to the original Defendant for the extended amount of supervision fees. Even if the agreement was not acknowledged, it is unfair to calculate the amount of damages or unjust enrichment on the premise of resident supervisor even though the Plaintiff had not actually resided at the construction site and had not performed supervision. The Plaintiff was also entrusted with the design or supervision of other construction during the extended supervision period. As such, there was no opportunity for the Plaintiff to lose, and the Plaintiff was already paid from the Defendant in excess of KRW 45,00,00 in the name of the design and supervision fees, even if the additional amount of supervision fees are recognized, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be deducted, and the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay extended supervision costs in relation to extended supervision costs.