1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim added and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases or in addition, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "E zone" in Part 6 is deemed to be the "E zone (which became the J of Ilyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City upon completion of an urban development project)."

In the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, the appraiser G in the 12th judgment shall be deemed to be the “ appraiser G in the first instance trial.”

Article 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "The each description of evidence Nos. 5 and 8 of the A, and each appraisal result of the appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraisal

After the first instance judgment No. 10, 5, "the plaintiff's service under the service contract of this case" was conducted, and : (5) defendant C did not limit the plaintiff's service to traditional certified architect's service, but included consultation service on the overall hotel business including various kinds of authorization and permission-related rental, hotel Spanish program, hotel Spanish program, commercial facility MD program, financial procurement, etc.; and thus, the appraiser should have reflected this point at the time of appraisal, but it is argued that the appraiser calculated excessive appraised value without reflecting it. However, the service contract of this case is excluded from construction design service of "Article 3 and Article 4 (8) which set forth "A", especially the scope of "construction design service" and "construction design service of this case" (Article 4 (8)), and "Attachment 2" of the service contract of this case, and "the construction service contract of this case" of this case, in light of the contents of the plaintiff's previous service contract of this case, the plaintiff's general service design of the plaintiff's certified architect as well.