1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 2,800,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from February 4, 2016 to December 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. Around March 2015, the Plaintiff, a construction business, construction business, construction business, design business, etc. of hazardous materials storage and treatment facilities, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction design and construction design (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant and Busan-gu C and D land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the design and construction design services of gas stations, and the Defendant, at the time of the instant contract, paid the Plaintiff the service payment of KRW 8.8 million (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the intermediate payment of KRW 8.8 million at the time of completion of the construction permit, and the remainder of KRW 4.4 million at the time of receipt of the construction completion.

C. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff continued to provide services under the instant contract and received a construction permit from the head of the Busan Metropolitan City annual head of the Gu-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office to construct a gas station on the instant land with the owner as the Defendant.

On March 17, 2015, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 8.8 million to the Plaintiff, and paid the intermediate payment of KRW 5 million on August 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 3.8 million won of the intermediate payment the Plaintiff seeks pursuant to the instant contract (i.e., intermediate payment of 8.8 million won - KRW 5 million paid by the Defendant before the building permit was granted) and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the contract of this case was terminated by the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, on the ground that, at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to design the main abandonment as two weeks, but the Plaintiff obtained the construction permit by designing the main abandonment as one week against the Defendant’s will. Therefore, the instant contract

Modern A No. 11, No. 3-.