1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2017, the Defendant (the representative of the C general architect office) entered into a contract with the Office of Education D (hereinafter “Office of Education”) under which the Defendant entered into a contract with the Seoul District Office of Education (hereinafter “Office of Education”) to set the design services for the E elementary school teachers’ operation remodeling and earthquake-proof reinforcement works (hereinafter “instant remodeling works”) as the service cost of 166,810,690 won, and the completion date as October 26, 2017.

B. Around May 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the design services for the survey and civil engineering sector (hereinafter “instant service contract”) among the design services for the instant remodeling project were to be performed by setting the service cost of KRW 14,300,000 and the payment date after the completion of delivery.

C. Around May 2017 and August 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the surveying design portion during the instant service, and on March 29, 2018, according to the direction of the Office of Education, the Plaintiff submitted the civil engineering design drawings, which are the remainder of the instant service, to the “F” (hereinafter referred to as the “F”).

On the other hand, on September 28, 2017, the Defendant paid only KRW 2,860,000 out of the instant service costs to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should pay the unpaid service cost, since all design services under the instant service contract have been completed.

As to this, the Defendant did not need civil engineering design in the design of the instant remodeling project, and the Defendant appears to have received the service cost from F by changing the supply site of the civil engineering design among the instant services into F. Therefore, in light of the good faith principle and the principle of change of circumstances, the Defendant’s service cost, 11,00,000, which is the cost for civil engineering design, excluding the survey cost.