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 court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, on the 8th day below, which is a part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the payment time of the 3rd day amount among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 5th day below is used as follows. The plaintiff's explanation is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as to the argument that the court of first instance made at the court of first instance added.

[M] The portion used in the instant service contract was set at the end of the month designated as the implementer, and if the instant service contract is valid, the implementer has not yet been designated, and the third installment payment period has not yet arrived. However, since E.S. lawfully terminated the instant service contract, the provisions on the third installment payment period stipulated in the instant service contract were invalidated.

In addition, Article 12(3) of the instant service contract provides, “At the time of termination of the contract under paragraph (1), E.S. shall settle the design flag amount and pay the reasonable amount to the Plaintiff’s service performed by the time of termination of the contract, but shall not settle the accounts for the work completed by the time of completion.” Article 7(7) provides, “Where Article 12(3) is applied mutatis mutandis due to the change of the time of payment in paragraph (3), the third period amount shall be deemed as the work completed by the end of the month of announcement of the designation of an urban development zone, and the date of announcement of the designation of an urban development zone in relation to the instant project shall be deemed as the fact that May 15, 2009 is the same as

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the business related to the three-dimensional gold among the services performed by the Plaintiff was already completed on May 31, 2009, which is the end of the month when the designation of an urban development zone was announced, and the three-dimensional gold was due on November 25, 2009, when the service contract of this case was lawfully terminated without any separate settlement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s timing for payment is reasonable.