A. Defendant A shall pay KRW 52,200,000 and a rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 8, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a building design contract with the Defendants for the construction of a general convalescent hospital (hereinafter “instant design contract”).

B. The main contents of the instant design contract are as follows.

Contract amount: Article 4(2) of the Contract Amount: KRW 10,000,000 (Additional Tax Table): 10,000,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract.

(2) Affairs related to the Defendants’ business, including various deliberations, approval, authorization, permission, and vicarious authorization, shall be excluded from the scope of the Plaintiff’s business.

C. The Plaintiff was paid the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 according to the instant design contract.

On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an energy saving planning design contract (hereinafter “instant energy saving design contract”) with Defendant A, setting the service cost as KRW 13,200,000 (including value-added tax).

E. After completing the design drawing according to the instant design contract, the Plaintiff offered the Defendants on July 15, 2013 and around July 26, 2013. Around that time, the Plaintiff prepared an energy saving plan in accordance with the instant energy saving design contract and provided it to the Defendant A after completing work.

F. Around July 17, 2013, Defendant LbC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LbC”) paid KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the service cost of the instant design contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 3, 4, 7, 8 (including branch numbers in the case of additional statements) and images, part of the results of the personal examination of D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant LAW entered into the instant energy saving design contract with Defendant LAW, but it is difficult to believe some of the results of the personal examination on D, which seems consistent with this, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge them solely by the descriptions of evidence A 2 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

B. The Defendants are the defendants.