1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a design and supervision contract with the IMM architect office (hereinafter “DIM”) in order to carry out the construction work of constructing the Plaintiff’s second floor housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and obtained a building permit as a design drawing supplied by the IMM.

B. On February 9, 2012, the Plaintiff cancelled the pertinent design and supervision contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”).

In the process of concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from the Defendant that “the total floor area of the rooftop is not included in the total floor area under the Building Act but included in the total floor area under the Local Tax Act, and thus, if the total floor area is combined with 12.58 square meters in the case of construction according to the existing design drawings, the total floor area exceeds 333.29 square meters, which is the standard for classification of high-class houses under the Local Tax Act, and requested the Defendant to change the design drawings.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant changed the area of 10.08 square meters among the living room area of the second floor of the instant housing into balcony, removed the part of the multi-story stairs, and reduced the total area of the 1,2 and the 1,3.96 square meters of the ground floor, 53.38 square meters of the 1,34.38 square meters of the 2nd floor, 130.64 square meters of the 2nd floor, and 10.93 square meters of the 1,329.91 square meters of the total floor area of the 1,329.91 square meters of the 2nd floor of the instant housing (hereinafter “construction drawings”), and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to conduct construction and supervision in accordance with the construction drawings.

(The plaintiff alleged that Gap evidence No. 5-1 drawings are the execution drawings, but the testimony of witness D alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).

On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant construction project with Taesung Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (mutually: Sungsung Construction at the time of the contract, hereinafter referred to as “ Taesung Comprehensive Construction”), and the Taesung Comprehensive Construction, which received the construction drawings.