1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 45,00,000 and the annual rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 19, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a design service contract with the Defendant and the Government-Si C (hereinafter “instant land”) to newly construct a collective housing on the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff completed each design drawings for the foregoing new construction works, and applied for a building permit to the Mayor of the Government, upon completion of the design drawings for the said new construction works. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the said new construction works from the Government Market.

C. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 35 million, including KRW 10 million, KRW 15 million on February 29, 2016, and KRW 5 million on April 14, 2016 and April 15, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8 (including virtual numbers), witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into the above service contract with the Defendant and completed the service work such as the preparation of the design drawing. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 45 million calculated by deducting KRW 35 million already paid from the Defendant’s KRW 80 million and delay damages therefrom.

As to this, the Defendant concluded a design service contract with the Plaintiff, but did not specify the service cost and paid the price at the Plaintiff’s request. On April 2016, the Defendant paid the said money on the ground that an additional payment of KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff’s side should be completed, so there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff additional service cost.

B. Although there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a design service contract, and the Defendant paid KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff with the service cost, whether the total service cost was set at KRW 80 million is the key issue of the instant case, this is examined.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in accordance with the facts of recognition, evidence, and the purport of the entire argument, that is, D, which has arranged a service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.