1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant entered into a design service contract with C to contract the design cost of KRW 57,00,000 for the building D in Busan-gun on January 13, 2009 (hereinafter "the design service contract of this case"). The plaintiff entered into a contract for the design service of the above building; the plaintiff entered into the Busan District Court's District Court's Decision No. 2010, Apr. 4, 2011 based on the executory exemplification of the payment order No. 2010,936,301 (hereinafter "the collection service contract of this case"), and the fact that the plaintiff received the collection and collection order of KRW 10,936,301 (hereinafter "the collection order of this case") from the service charges of the design service contract of this case against the defendant under the Busan District Court's Decision No. 20130,16.

2. The judgment on the defendant's defense is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's defense, since the defendant defense that C's service charges claims based on the design service contract of this case against C were all extinguished by repayment on May 10, 2009, prior to the delivery of the seizure and collection order of this case to the defendant, and the defendant's representative director, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 9 [No. 7 (in relation to the payment, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic due to the lack of dispute over each portion of the stamp image of C, and the plaintiff's each deposit certificate signed and sealed by C was made by the defendant and C with a false representation, but it is insufficient to acknowledge it only on the basis of the records No. 2, 3, No. 4-1 through 4, and No. 1 through 9, and on the ground that the plaintiff's submission of No. 7 certificate to the court of first instance to the court against the plaintiff constitutes the lawsuit fraud.