beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On March 30, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a design service contract with the Defendant with respect to the project for the development of the China-Pacific City (hereinafter “instant project”) with the design cost of KRW 2.8 million (hereinafter “instant service contract”). Since the Plaintiff reduced the design cost of KRW 30 million in the instant service contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) While the Plaintiff completed the design of the instant project with the spatial architecture, which was permitted by the Chinese government, but failed to prepare investment funds, it was merely a construction company that could cause the Defendant to invest, and that the design cost would be received from the construction company that subsequently made investments, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the design cost to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s design cost claim is recognized, the instant claim is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, as “a claim against the construction company’s design or supervision” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the instant lawsuit was filed on March 30, 2007 or after three years from April 30, 2007, which was the date on which the instant service contract was concluded.
2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is recognized as having entered into the instant service contract with the defendant on March 30, 2007, but it is insufficient to recognize the facts that the design cost of the instant service contract was 280,000,000 only with the statement in evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if the design cost under the instant service contract is deemed to be KRW 280,000,00,000, according to each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s design cost claim is China.