1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 17,356,492 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 7, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a cleaning service contract with the Defendant and provided services for cleaning and disinfection work in an amount equivalent to KRW 69,164,792 (including purchase cost of disinfection medicine) in total at the place ordered by the Defendant from February 28, 2013 to December 8, 2016 (including KRW 10,230,000 for disinfection medicine).

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 51,808,300 in total as service payment.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (Partial omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of 17,356,492 won to the Plaintiff (i.e., 69,164,792 won - 10,230,000 won) and damages for delay from the date following the delivery date of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim made by the Plaintiff on March 6, 2018.

Under the premise that the nature of the service contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the contractor is a contract, the Defendant asserts that the purchase cost of disinfection drugs is KRW 10,230,000, out of the service cost claimed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, the contractor, is not the cost to be paid by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff also stated the instant service contract as the subcontract agreement in the complaint or the preparatory document submitted to the

However, the confession in court refers to the statement that is unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations by the other party. Thus, the legal nature of the instant service contract cannot be immediately viewed as the contract on the ground that the Plaintiff stated the instant service contract as the subcontract.

Rather, in light of the content of the service provided by the Plaintiff, it constitutes a contract under the Civil Act for the purpose of the instant service contract’s completion.

Rather, it is deemed that it constitutes a delegation contract under the Civil Act for the purpose of continuous provision of work with respect to management of affairs.