1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,360,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from December 10, 2015 to November 30, 2016.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking payment of the remainder of 30 million won, while receiving a request from the Defendant for design services for interior works from the Defendant for the completion of design drawings, but the Plaintiff received only 25 million won out of the price.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff claimed 50 million won as to the design service cost, and the defendant claimed 30 million won and did not reach an agreement on the amount and paid 25 million won first, and that the defendant agreed on the remaining balance as 1,63.6 million won.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a design service contract with the Defendant and supplied the Defendant the design map after completing the design work. If the Plaintiff added the purport of the entire pleadings to the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including paper numbers) around January 2015, the Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to make an estimate of the design service of the “E” store on the first floor of the Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, and the first floor below D, and the Plaintiff sent a estimate of KRW 90 million and nine million around January 2015, but the Plaintiff did not obtain the Defendant’s approval, and the Plaintiff again sent the Defendant a notarized contract with the design cost of KRW 50 million on February 9, 2015, which is KRW 3,000,0000,000 to the Defendant, which is the real value-added tax payment of KRW 6,500,000,0000,0000 to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015.

According to the above facts, the fact that the plaintiff entered into a design service contract and the defendant completed and supplied the design accordingly is unclear, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the design service cost as value-added tax (excluding value-added tax), and it is otherwise recognized.