1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasons why the court of this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, stated in this case, are as stated in the part concerning the plaintiff among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The portion to be dismissed or added, which is the second 11th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be “ December 11, 2015”.

“15” in the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be added to “32” following the fifth 14th sentence.

The "(i)" portion of "(i)" that shall be reduced from 15 to 18th of the first instance judgment is as follows:

According to the building specifications in this case, the Plaintiff participated in a specialized ship designer who has a design experience in similar vessels (14m cm) and prepares a design drawing. However, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, only before January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff completed consultations with E, a specialized ship designer, and agreed to enter into a design service contract on the 13th day of the same month, and that E actually performed the design service from the 14th day of the same month (the Plaintiff was actually performed by the Plaintiff in the form of borrowing the name of E, and thus, there is no defect in the design drawing prepared in the name of E that was approved by the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority on January 7, 2016).

However, just because the Plaintiff consulted with E on the conclusion of the design service contract before and after the time when the design drawing was approved by the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority, it cannot be deemed that E participated in the preparation of the D design drawing as stipulated in the building service plan of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

The portion from the 8th 16th to the 9th 1st 1st son of the first instance judgment is as follows.

The plaintiff asserts that "the penalty for delay shall be reduced because it is unfairly excessive to the plaintiff who is a small and medium enterprise located in the local area."

However, the facts admitted above, the evidence and the pleadings mentioned above.