1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an architect who is engaged in the construction design and supervision as the trade name of “CArchitect Office,” and the Defendant is a person who owns land E (hereinafter “instant land”) in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 2, 2016, Defendant and D decided to construct a parking building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land, and concluded a design service contract for the said building with the Plaintiff, setting the service cost of KRW 22 million (including surtax; hereinafter the same shall apply) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on August 2, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant design service contract”). C.

On April 2019, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on charges of forging or uttering private documents, fraud, etc., stating that “The Plaintiff, even though there was no fact that the Plaintiff entered into the supervision contract on the instant building, without arbitrarily affixing the seal imprint of the Defendant’s name, to forge the private document and to receive KRW 8,100,000 for design and supervision services by using the document for the purpose of preparing and using the standard contract for construction supervision of the building, and attempted to use the document and obtain money from the said court, but was attempted to do so.” However, the Defendant received a non-prosecution disposition on June 24, 2019 with respect to the said case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 15, Eul evidence 16 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a design service contract with the Defendant by setting the service cost of KRW 22 million with respect to the instant building, and entered into a supervision service contract by setting the service cost of KRW 5.5 million separately, and received a total of KRW 19.4 million from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the unpaid payment of KRW 8.1 million (= KRW 5.5 million - KRW 19.4 million) to the Plaintiff.