1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In fact, the Defendant collected from the non-party General Construction Co., Ltd. to request the original contractor to make a shortage by calculating the necessary volume according to the drawings, as the structural value of the aggregate construction among the new apartment construction works in the Han River City Ab-10 block located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

Accordingly, around June 2012, the head of the defendant Eul requested the plaintiff to calculate the aggregate amount necessary for the above Corporation. The plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, and the above service contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.

On August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the CY calculation statement to the Defendant first. The Defendant’s on-site director demanded correction and delivered the final quantity calculation statement on August 30, 2012 at the end of the revision work over three occasions.

Upon the plaintiff's request for the payment of service cost, the defendant would pay 5 million won in two times each, and the plaintiff first issued a tax invoice of 5 million won to the defendant.

On September 2012, the defendant paid 3 million won to the plaintiff as service price.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), Gap witness C's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the service payment of KRW 7 million (=10 million - three million) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 27, 2014 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Although the defendant alleged that the service price was set excessively, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the service price of this case cannot be deemed excessive in light of the plaintiff's work contents and work period, etc.