1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a construction design contract with the Defendant for the supply of design services for the new gas station (including value-added tax) to KRW 29,700,000.

After that, while the Plaintiff’s design service business is performed according to the aforementioned initial contract, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to entirely change the content of the service, depending on the circumstances on the Defendant’s side, which constitutes a design change that corresponds to the reason for increase in the design service cost.

In this case, the changed service cost is calculated by the total construction cost of the changed building x the total construction cost of KRW 2,080,910,000 multiplied by 4.715%, which is the agreed design service cost of KRW 93,849,00, which is the total construction cost of the changed construction work.

The plaintiff completed all design services under the first agreement and revised agreement, but was not supplied only by the defendant's unfair rejection.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the design service cost of KRW 93,849,00 to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

2. First of all, we examine the part concerning the design service cost of KRW 29,700,00,000, which the Plaintiff seeks.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire arguments, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a construction design contract with the defendant and the defendant on February 2, 2015 for the supply of and demand for the design services for the gas station construction project, which is executed on the land outside C and two parcels of land, 29,700,000 (including value-added tax).

The burden of proof regarding the completion of a work in a contract for work is against the contractor seeking the payment of remuneration for the result of the work (Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684, 94Da26691 delivered on November 22, 1994). In this case, whether the Plaintiff seeking the payment of service costs had completed the design service business as agreed under the above contract for work is insufficient to recognize it solely with the statement of evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2).