1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the court below cited the second 13 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance: “Defendant C is the representative director of the defendant company, and the defendant F is the working-level officer of the defendant company”; “Defendant C was the working-level officer of the defendant company at the time when the defendant company was the representative director of the defendant company at the time and the defendant D was the working-level officer of the defendant company at the time when the defendant company was the defendant company at the time; “Defendant B” of the third 4th th th th st th th th th th th th th th, “the defendant company”; and the plaintiff’s assertion

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s service contract should be completed with the execution design documents for the eight buildings, and the Defendant Company only prepared one consent execution design documents based on the “B” parcel.

Although the Defendant Company received service charges and did not properly perform the work of preparing working drawings, etc., the result of the first instance appraiser I’s request for appraisal evaluated as 100% of the total performance rate of design services performed by the Defendant Company cannot be trusted. It constitutes grounds for cancellation of “where contract performance is impossible” under Article 14(1)3 of the instant service contract.

Even if it does not fall under the above reasons, the owner of a design contract may cancel or terminate the contract at any time.

Therefore, as the Defendant Company is obligated to restore the duty to cancel the contract, the remaining Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 99,00,000,00 without intent or ability to prepare the shop design drawing and the execution design drawing.

B. The fact that the Defendant Company prepared only the execution design documents based on the “B” parcel among eight parcels of the entire “A” or “A” does not conflict between the parties, on the other hand,.