1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received a supply of KRW 26,700,000 ( separate value added tax) for the design of the construction of a building for accommodation facilities C in the East Sea (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant, and around September 12, 2014, received the supervision of the instant construction from the Defendant to KRW 9,000,000 ( separate value added tax), and performed all the said design and supervision duties.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 14,00,000 ( KRW 4,000,000 on June 20, 2014, KRW 5,000,000 on July 31, 2014, and KRW 5,000,000 on September 5, 2014, and KRW 23,00,000 ( KRW 5,000,000 on August 19, 2014, and KRW 3,00,000 on February 27, 2015) from the Defendant.

(c)

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a tax invoice of KRW 39,270,000 (=26,700,000 (design Cost)) for total amount of KRW 2,670,000 (Design Cost) for the design cost and supervision cost of the instant construction project, and the Defendant received it.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings [ although the defendant asserts that the construction supervision contract of this case (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the plaintiff was forged, the defendant who does not dispute the establishment of the petition shall be deemed to be identical to the plaintiff's land, since each seal of No. 13 and 14 of the evidence No. 13 and the seal affixed to the construction supervision contract of this case and the seal affixed to the construction supervision contract of this case shall be presumed to be the defendant, and the establishment of the whole document shall be presumed to be completed, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above presumption, and

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, it is recognized that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 39,270,000 as the design cost and supervision cost of the instant construction project. Since the Plaintiff received KRW 37,00,000 from the Defendant as the design cost and supervision cost of the instant construction project, it is special.