1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a cleaning service contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service contract”) and provided services for cleaning and disinfection work in a sum of KRW 69,164,792 (including purchase cost of disinfection medicine) at the place ordered by the Defendant from February 28, 2013 to December 8, 2016 (including KRW 10,230,000 for disinfection medicine).

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 51,808,300 in total as service payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence and evidence set forth in the above facts and evidence No. 4, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received a subcontract for cleaning services from the Defendant through the instant service contract from February 28, 2013 to December 8, 2016, and the service cost is settled after the completion of cleaning services, but the cost of materials, such as the purchase cost of disinfection medicine, was paid separately from the service cost.

① First of all, considering the nature of the instant service contract, the Plaintiff did not perform cleaning services under the order of the Defendant to perform specific duties and matters to be observed, but performed an overall control of cleaning services according to the Plaintiff’s own plan, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not set the service fees in advance under the instant service contract, but appears to have not been able to specify the quantity of personnel, equipment, etc. invested in each of the cleaning services in advance. The Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the service fees on the premise that the instant service contract was the contract.