설계용역비
1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,400,000 and its annual rate from July 1, 2013 to February 4, 2016 to the Plaintiff is 5% and the next day.
1. In full view of the purport of each argument in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, 12 (including the fact that there is a serial number), the plaintiff entered into a design service contract (hereinafter "design service contract of this case") with the defendant to prepare a design drawing and deliver it to the defendant and to receive the cost of the design service. The plaintiff notified the defendant that he could not perform the design service of this case more than KRW 57,70,00 as he did not receive the cost of the design service of this case from around August 2010 (hereinafter "first transaction"), and thus, the transaction relation was suspended (hereinafter "first transaction"), and the plaintiff again received KRW 70,000 from the defendant about KRW 70,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000 from around November 20, 2013.
2. Meanwhile, the defendant defense that the design service cost due to the primary transaction was extinguished by the lapse of the prescription due to the failure to exercise it for 3 years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as a claim concerning the construction work of a person engaged in the design or supervision of the construction work. As to the plaintiff's defense that the period of prescription has been interrupted by the approval of his/her obligation or the defendant has renounced his/her benefit of the prescription, the plaintiff's defense that the design service cost due to the primary transaction was set forth as a claim for the construction work of a person engaged in the design or supervision of the construction work. As such, the plaintiff's defense that he