1. The part concerning the claim for damages among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The defendant's Gwangju District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 35 million (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the restaurant interior works located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to finally resolve the dispute on the instant construction contract through arbitration by an arbitration agency under the Arbitration Act.

(Article 8 of the General Terms of Contracts). (c)

The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost under the instant construction contract (including additional construction cost) from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not paid part of the construction cost (including additional construction cost). On December 15, 2014, the payment order was issued on December 31, 2014, ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 14,128,000 to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The arbitration agreement to which the Arbitration Act applies with respect to the part of the claim objection in the lawsuit in this case refers to an agreement between the parties to settle all or part of a dispute that has already occurred or may occur in a certain legal relationship by arbitration, regardless of whether it is a contractual dispute, and where such arbitration agreement is acknowledged, it is reasonable to deem that all disputes arising from a specific legal relationship between the parties are resolved by arbitration, unless there are any special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74344 Decided May 31, 2007). The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to follow the arbitral proceedings, instead of going through the judicial proceedings, the dispute arising in relation to the instant construction contract, and the amount claimed by the Defendant as the instant payment order.