beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 23 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from June 11, 2016 to May 25, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant and Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, to perform the construction design work on the apartment housing construction project of the 9-story underground floor on the 543-2 land of the 5,644 square meters-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and to receive 90 million won (excluding value-added tax) for the price.
(hereinafter “instant service”). On June 20, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million out of the instant service costs to the Plaintiff.
B. According to Article 4 of the service contract of this case, “The basis and method of calculating the service cost shall be based on the basis of the consideration, the payment of the service cost may be made in lump sum or in installments, and the payment of the service cost shall be made in installments as follows in principle, but the time and amount of the payment shall be as follows, but may be added and adjusted in consultation with
D) When entering into a high-rate design contract with 10,00,000 won for construction project approval books, approximately 22% of 33,000,000 won at the time of completion of the PP project (date of commencement) at approximately 37% of the 30,000,000 won at the time of completion of the PP project (date of commencement) at the time of completion of the 37% design of the 30,000,000 additional 10% of the 30,000 additional 10% of the 30,000 additional 10,000 won at the time of the 10,000 additional 10,000 won for the 10,000 additional 1,00,000 won for the 10,000 won for the 133,00,000 won for the 20,000 won portion of the 3.
C. The Plaintiff completed the construction approval work in accordance with the instant service contract.
After that, upon receiving the Defendant’s request that the site area was changed, the Plaintiff applied the changed site area (1,64.10 square meters) on June 8, 2015, and completed a new construction project approval book. D.
The defendant judged that no feasibility exists only on the original secured land, and intended to purchase additional land, but failed only on the original land.