1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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

2. The 10th of the 2nd page "G" shall be amended to "H".

2. The real estate of this case shall be modified to “the instant telecom” on 17 pages.

3 Myeon 6, 10 Pak-gu Office for the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be amended respectively to "Magjin-gu Office for the Gyeonggi-gu".

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The party to the design contract of this case is the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even though the name of the owner under the design contract of this case was “spatial force” in light of the details, contents, and purpose of the design contract of this case as the Plaintiff.

B. A certified architect who is a certified architect is obligated to observe the laws and regulations in filing an application for a building permit approval, etc. pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 of the Certified Architects Act, and faithfully perform his/her duties. The defendant is obligated to give advice to the other party to the design contract, who is the other party to the design

C. According to the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Ordinance of Busan Metropolitan City with which the Defendant was liable for nonperformance, the installation of an elevator outside the building of the instant franchise was impossible. However, the Defendant or his performance assistant, made a definite answer that the installation of an elevator is possible without properly verifying it, and the Plaintiff trusted this and entered into the instant sales contract.

The plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case due to the defendant's erroneous advice, and thus, the plaintiff suffered loan interest and burden due to the delay in the business and loss of the business.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages totaling KRW 40,485,476 (i.e., a loan interest of KRW 10,485,476) (i.e., KRW 30,000).

3. Each issue;