1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for supervision of new construction works C on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at Jeju-si, setting the service cost of KRW 18 million, and entered into the said new construction works design service contract with the amount of KRW 73 million on the 27th of the same month, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 118 million including supervision service cost of KRW 18 million and design service cost of KRW 73 million from May 3, 2013 to March 13, 2014, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted 1) The plaintiff paid 24.5 million won to the defendant as the service cost related to the construction of this case (i.e., KRW 118.8 million - KRW 18.3 million - KRW 73 million - KRW 2.8 million - 2.8 million), which the defendant alleged unjust enrichment that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 24.5 million as well as damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the request for claim and alteration of cause of this case to the plaintiff by the day of full payment. 2) As to this, the defendant, together with supervision and service cost of KRW 91,00,000,000,000 for two copies of design change, KRW 21.9 million for the application cost for permission for factory establishment, KRW 2.4 million for standard workplace design of KRW 3 million,000,000.

B. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the facts that there was two design changes. The plaintiff asserted that the total amount exceeding 73 million won of the design service cost was erroneously paid through the original complaint of this case, but the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim with the purport that the defendant recognized the amount of KRW 18 million of the multi-investment supervision service cost and KRW 2.8 million of the secondary design cost, and the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of this case was added to the new construction of this case, rather, the defendant added to the new construction of this case.