1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant, who operates “C architect office”, entered into a construction supervision agreement with D on a contract amount of KRW 10,625,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction of a row house (hereinafter “instant new building”) on the land of Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. Since then, the owner of the newly constructed building of this case changed to F (hereinafter “F”), the Defendant concluded a construction supervision agreement with F on December 16, 2013, which is the contract price of KRW 10,625,000 (excluding value-added tax) with F.

C. The approval for use of the new building of this case was delayed on February 9, 2015, because the new building of this case was constructed in a planned road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant changed the purpose of the new building of this case into an urban residential house between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 8 million to the Defendant in return for the change (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

A) Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 8 million to the Defendant. However, since the purpose of the new building of this case was not changed to urban residential housing, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the said agreement through the delivery of the statement of grounds for appeal in this case. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8 million and the damages for delay thereof. 2) If the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the statement in subparagraphs 1-2 and 3-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 and 3 of the judgment that was unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff may be recognized to have paid KRW 5 million to G either through G or directly to the Defendant on July 2, 2014, and KRW 3 million on July 17, 2014. However, the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 7 as a whole.