1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Around April 2002, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant for the design of soil-free construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”) during the construction period of the amamba-dong reconstruction apartment (hereinafter “instant contract”). From April 1, 2002 to April 30, 2002, the term of the contract was set as KRW 33,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the term of the contract from April 1,

The Plaintiff performed an amount equivalent to KRW 30,800,000 (including value-added tax) out of the design services under the instant contract, but was not paid by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay KRW 30,800,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[Along with the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim for service payment under the instant contract against the Defendant, if it is not exercised for three years since it constitutes a claim against the contracted party or any other person engaged in the design of the construction (Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act), the extinctive prescription expires unless it is exercised for three years (Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act). According to the evidence No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 30,800,000 for the above service payment against the Defendant on January 17, 2005. Since the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed after three years from January 17, 2005 is apparent in the record, the Plaintiff’s claim for service payment is already extinguished by the extinctive prescription.)