용역대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,911,816 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from May 30, 2014 to February 9, 2015.
1. The plaintiff's judgment on the plaintiff's claim is the cause of the claim in this case, and all of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including a serial number) can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings.
2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for service price of this case had already expired by the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations.
The facts that the plaintiff provided the service for the defendant until December 4, 2012, and part of the service provided by the plaintiff was done before February 3, 2012, which was three years prior to the date of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, can be acknowledged. However, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 9, the defendant prepared a written confirmation to the effect that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff to the plaintiff was KRW 91,287,416 until March 24, 2014, and that the defendant paid the service payment to the plaintiff by May 3, 2013. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for service payment was suspended, and the plaintiff's defense pointing this out is justified, and the defendant's defense was not justified.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.