1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the "attached Form" cited in the part of the "1. Recognition" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the attached Form. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, from April 6, 2015 to May 1, 2015, deducted KRW 34,683,350 from the service price by the number of days of reporting 26 days from April 6, 2015. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of the penalty for delay should be paid as the service price without deducting the amount of the penalty for delay from the service price for the following reasons.

① Although the Defendant had changed the design twice due to the Defendant’s circumstances, the Defendant had extended the contract period only for an unreasonably short period, and thus, the completion of work was delayed due to the cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, and under such circumstances, the Defendant’s imposition of liquidated damages for delay is not permissible against good morals and other social order.

② On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to complete the instant design service. As such, the Plaintiff submitted the instant design service subject matter within the service performance period and completed the service. Since the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to complete the completion inspection and delayed the completion inspection on the ground of minor defects, such as simple errors that do not interfere with the Defendant’s recognition of the completion of the work, the Plaintiff did not delay the Plaintiff’s service performance, and even if there were necessary matters for correction and supplementation, the Defendant intentionally delayed the completion due to the continuous fear of public correspondence.

③ Even if corrective measures regarding the subject matter of service were necessary, the Plaintiff requested the inspection of completion of the instant design service on April 2, 2015, and thus, the calculation of liquidated damages shall be made when the subject matter of service was submitted within the service performance period.