1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court emphasizes or adds to this court, and the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In entering into the instant design service agreement with the Defendant, who operated the “C architect office” around March 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “J”) that entered into the instant design service agreement (the design (revision) agreement for the construction of a new housing complex (III) located in the city of Scheon-si), and the previous Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”).

(2) Around March 2015, the Defendant entered into a design service agreement with the Company A (hereinafter “A”) on the housing complex (hereinafter “A”) located outside of Kacheon-si, and entered into a new construction service agreement with the Company A (hereinafter “A”) on the housing complex (hereinafter “A”) located outside of Kacheon-si and 15 parcels of land for the purpose of improving the profitability of the sales business. However, as in the previous design, the Defendant placed the elevator and stairs at the center of an officetel, designed each household in the form of “A” and left the household in the direction of increasing the floor area ratio by simply leaving the household in the direction of increasing the floor area ratio.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first service contract” between A and the Defendant, and the instant design service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was “the third service contract”). At the time, the first service contract was in need of the determination of an urban planning facility on the abolition of the road located in the new construction site, and thus, the building permit was delayed. The third service contract did not have any reason to undergo a traffic-related inspection or the determination of urban planning facility, due to the situation in which the building permit was already granted for the construction site.

However, the defendant is in the first service contract.