1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor added 2.2. additional determination as to the plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion of importance and non-existence in this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor entered into not only the D General Maintenance Plan service contract but also the D General Maintenance Plan service contract with the Defendant, which was concluded between the Defendant, and completed the service work in accordance with the above contract. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor KRW 120,000,000 for the service cost of the basic design (= KRW 40,000 for the service cost of the basic design, including D General Maintenance Plan, and KRW 80,000 for the basic design (= KRW 40,000 for the working design service cost of KRW 40,000) and the delay damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the testimony of the witness G of the first instance trial and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., (i) where the granting of a subsidy as provided by the Traditional Temples Act is not clear at the time of the application, and (ii) the witness G of the first instance trial testified that “it is not necessary until the design drawing for the application of a subsidy as provided by the Traditional Temples Act is not necessary, and the design for which the subsidy is to be paid may be executed, and the contract for construction may not be designed in advance without knowledge of the payment of the subsidy,” the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff’s successor is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant entered into a working design service contract with the Plaintiff’s successor, such as a comprehensive maintenance and improvement service contract or Dolsung, prior to the receipt of the subsidy as provided by the Traditional Temples Act

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor is without merit.