beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the following determination as to the assertion made by the Defendants either by breaking or adding the pertinent part and by adding it to the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, (1) Part 3 "A defendant" in Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be a designer, and (2) Part 6 "E" in Part 3 shall be deemed to be a "C".
B. Of the first instance judgment, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance states that ① “The instant service contract is 5,00,000 won” (Article 4(g) of the instant service contract provides that “When there is any defect in the data submitted after the submission of such data, including all the preparatory documents necessary for the permission procedures related to the tinsan Development Project (the execution of the procedure) and the designer at the time of the occurrence of the defect in the data submitted after the submission of the data, including the complement of the complete supplementation thereof). ② Subsequent to the 5th page 17, the “other” (the service amount under the instant service contract was 50,000 won). In light of the fact that the service amount was 5,00,000 won, Defendant B demanded the Plaintiff to additionally pay KRW 30,000,000 which is 60% of the above amount, it cannot be deemed that the change in the contents of the contract is merely a demand for change or a demand for expenses as a person to do so).
3. The Defendants’ additional determination was made in the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 40 million to the Defendants includes expenses necessary for the Defendants’ performance of their service duties and remuneration arising from the performance of their existing service duties. Thus, even if the instant service contract was revoked, the said retainer can not be the subject of restitution. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant service contract against the Defendants.