1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendants, a married couple, to perform the design drawing modification work on the ground of the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Defendants, for the construction of a new test on the ground of a single house; (b) from around that time, the Plaintiff continued to perform the work with respect to the interior materials, etc. related to the Defendants, and continued to perform the work such as changing the design and selecting the finishing materials.

On December 2016, the Plaintiff presented a written estimate for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works to the Defendants.

B. On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a construction supervision contract for a building that requires the Defendants to pay a total of KRW 8,120,000 and KRW 3,480,000 upon completion of construction supervision (hereinafter “instant contract”). However, the Defendants refused to sign the said contract and demanded reversal of the contract.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to pay the expenses already paid. On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff urged the Defendants to pay KRW 6,780,613 for personnel expenses, KRW 678,061 for direct expenses, KRW 678,061 for external expenses, and KRW 7,90,000 for the settlement of accounts by July 28, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 12, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1 entered into a contract with the Defendants on the construction of new housing with the content that the Plaintiff revised the architectural design drawings, completed the interior finishing design, and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the performance of the duties of selecting the finishing materials when other artificial testers perform artificial test work.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff performed his duties, and the Plaintiff’s representative director and the Defendants were expected to change the relationship with E, design and materials, and without preparing the contract, due to the difficulty in calculating objective costs, etc., the design drawing was modified and supervised without preparing the contract. The contract of this case is concluded by reflecting the price corresponding to the weather rate and the expenses to be incurred in the future.