1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 193,60,000 and the payment thereof on July 14, 2017.

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff maintained the cause of the claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, which sought payment of the agreed service cost against the defendants, on the premise that the plaintiff completed the service contract of this case, as the primary cause of the claim from the court of first instance.

To the extent that the purport of the claim is reduced, it is “part of the claim.”

Even if evidence No. 26 through 28 was additionally submitted by this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justifiable. Thus, this court's judgment as to the primary cause of claim is citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the conjunctive claim causes added by this Court, the Plaintiff sought payment of the service cost corresponding to the part already performed, even if the Plaintiff failed to complete the service under the instant service agreement. A.

Under Article 686(3) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the service price corresponding to the work price is terminated without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff, who is the mandatary, and thus, should be paid the remuneration, i.e., the service price corresponding to the work price corresponding to the work price. The Defendants asserted that the Defendant Union terminated the instant service contract due to the Plaintiff’s fault, and that the service price already paid to the Plaintiff exceeds the maturity.

According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, Article 17 (1) of the service contract of this case provides that "where design business is interrupted due to a cause attributable to the defendant association, the defendant association shall pay the remuneration for the design business already performed by the plaintiff." Meanwhile, pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article, where the service of this case is interrupted due to a cause attributable to the plaintiff, the defendant association shall pay the remuneration already paid to the plaintiff.