A. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a design service agreement with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff would receive the payment in installments of KRW 202,360,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the design of the apartment construction project on the nine parcels outside C outside C in Gyeyang-si. However, at the time of design contract, the Plaintiff entered into a design service agreement with the content that the Plaintiff would receive the payment in installments of KRW 202,360,00 for the total service cost (40,472,00), KRW 40% at the time of receipt of project approval (80,94,000), KRW 30% at the time of project approval (60,708,000), and KRW 10% at the time of delivery of the construction drawing (20,236,

B. On May 21, 2013, the Defendant obtained the approval of the project plan from Ganyang City.

C. Accordingly, on June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 111,652,00 (i.e., KRW 80,944,000, KRW 60,708,000 when receiving project approval) from the Defendant, but did not comply with the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff sent a proof of the content of demanding payment to the Defendant on July 29, 2013. < Amended by Act No. 11948, Aug. 22, 2013; Act No. 11953, Aug. 28, 2013; Act No. 11904, Aug. 28, 2013>

Then, around September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff by September 17, 2013, and when paying the agreed design cost within the above-mentioned period, the Plaintiff is not required to additionally require the design service cost, such as the design change, which was already in progress. However, where the payment of service cost is not made on the agreed date, the Plaintiff prepared a design service payment agreement to the effect that the agreement is reached to pay the service cost due to the design change, etc. at the request of the designer

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). (e)

However, as the Defendant did not pay the service cost under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 111,652,00, which is the full amount of the service cost.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 111,652,00 for the service cost and the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 111,652,00 after the date of project approval.