A. On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a design standard contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to perform the design service of a building to be newly built on the land of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant, at KRW 38,00,000, at the request of the Defendant for KRW 38,000,000.

B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed a building report on June 11, 2012, and was issued a report completion certificate for the alteration of the use of the building and large-scale repair with the owner as the Defendant on July 10, 2012 by the headquarters of the window in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

C. On July 8, 2013, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment stating that “The amount is KRW 38,00,000: the due date: October 30, 2013; and that the principal shall comply with the following provisions in relation to the amount of the design cost not paid to the Plaintiff. By the due date, the above amount shall be paid by the due date. If the payment is not made by the due date, the payment shall be made by the next day to the due date.” (hereinafter “the letter of payment in this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38,00,000 won according to the contract of this case and the letter of commitment of this case, and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 10% per annum as stipulated in the letter of commitment of this case from October 31, 2013 to April 9, 2014, which is the day following the payment date stipulated in the letter of commitment of this case, from October 31, 2013 to the day following the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff's land is 60% of the building-to-land ratio, and is designed at will by applying 10% to the plaintiff's land, and arbitrarily designed without the defendant's hanok design, and did not provide the design drawings and related documents to the defendant.