1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Around March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the design service of a neighborhood living facility of the total floor area of 660 square meters in Gyeongnam Development-gun with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant design service contract”) with the service cost of KRW 10 million and the term of the contract from March 13, 2015 to 60 days, etc. (hereinafter “instant design service contract”).

Although the Defendant received the design service cost of KRW 9.1 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant had the Plaintiff use KRW 900,000 for the structural safety diagnosis cost, and upon receiving the Defendant’s unilateral application for a modified construction permit, required the Nonparty D architect office to additionally pay KRW 10.8 million for the design service cost.

In addition, the Defendant did not provide the design drawings to the Plaintiff by March 13, 2015, which is the design service period, so there was a penalty of 1.3 million won for delay until July 17, 2015, which is the termination date of the instant design service contract.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million out of the service cost of the instant design service contract on March 13, 2015, and KRW 6.1 million to the Defendant on June 4, 2015, respectively; the Plaintiff paid KRW 3.6 million to Nonparty D’s architect office on November 6, 2013; and KRW 7.2 million on March 11, 2014; and the Plaintiff paid KRW 9 million out of the structural safety diagnosis cost.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the Defendant did not properly provide the design drawing according to the instant design service contract.

The plaintiff was additionally responsible due to structural safety diagnosis costs due to the unsatisfed design roads.

It is difficult to deem that the design service cost of KRW 10,80,000 has been additionally incurred due to the defendant's unilateral application for change of construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking into account the written evidence Nos. 1 through 18, the Plaintiff concluded the instant design service contract with the Defendant on Mar. 13, 2015, and on Mar. 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was Nonparty D on Nov. 6, 2013 and Mar. 11, 2014.