1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,480,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 31, 2014 to October 27, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates an architect's office under the trade name of "B," and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells electronic parts.

B. On June 15, 201, the Plaintiff agreed that 16,800,000 won out of the service costs shall be paid at the time of completion of the contract, when the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Mexico Co., Ltd. (the Defendant’s company’s change), and the remainder of 8,400,000,000 won shall be paid at the time of completion of the contract, when submitting estimated drawings, as well as at the time of completion of the contract, when the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Mexico Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant factory”).

(hereinafter “instant design contract”). C.

Before the conclusion of the design contract of this case, the Defendant, orally, contracted the design business of the private factory 2,804.49 square meters and other extended construction work among the factory of this case to the single architect office of the corporation (hereinafter “one-day architect”). The Plaintiff and one-day architect jointly carried out the design business of the factory of this case between the Plaintiff and one-day architect, and the Plaintiff agreed to jointly carry out the design business of the factory of this case. However, when the Plaintiff delivers the above painting factory and the design drawing of hazardous materials storage to one-day architect, the Japanese architect added the design drawing to the Plaintiff and agreed to perform the authorization and permission business as to the whole design business

On the other hand, the defendant ordered the E-Survey Design Corporation to design the change of the unit of district in relation to the factory extension work of this case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3-1, 2-2, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 201, 201, the Plaintiff asserted 1 completed the design business of a painting plant and a dangerous substance storage in accordance with the design contract of the instant case, and the Plaintiff notified the architect and the Defendant of the completion of the design drawing.