1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: (a) each of the “instant contract” in the 4th and 20th of the 4th of the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 196th of the 6th of the 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the

[Additional Part] The plaintiff asserts that at the time of the conclusion of the instant service contract, the true intent of the plaintiff and the defendant was to calculate the cost of producing books based on the “area of the project site.”

However, from the time of the application for the payment order of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the total floor space is the criteria for calculating the cost of producing books. Since the Defendant asserted that there was no unpaid cost of producing books when calculating the cost of producing books, the Plaintiff changed the argument that the decision was made to regard the area of the site at the time of concluding the instant service contract as the standard for calculating the cost of producing books, and that there was no unpaid cost of producing books when calculating the cost of producing books.

Considering that the Plaintiff’s appointment of an attorney-at-law as a legal representative and applied for a payment order, there were circumstances that could not be asserted in the beginning, but later, it cannot be seen as a case where the Plaintiff’s assertion is possible due to the securing of evidence, etc., and that there was an assertion that cannot be compatible with the existing assertion after the litigation was progress, the Plaintiff’s assertion has

The Plaintiff cited the circumstance that the Defendant paid the service cost without raising an objection with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the service cost calculated based on the area of the project site, and submitted additional evidence (Evidence A No. 20) in the trial.

However, in the written request for service costs, the Plaintiff’s “site area” (No. 2) or “the total floor area of building” (the “site area”) rather than the “area of the project site”).