1. The Defendant’s KRW 139,038,578 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 21, 2014 to May 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff (Jurisdiction: the National Defense Facility Head Office under the Plaintiff’s control) appointed the Defendant as a successful bidder through competitive bidding regarding the design service in order to implement a re-design construction work for aircraft trial operation (such as installation of a roof and pole at a place where an aircraft is moored; hereinafter “instant construction work”) within the third flight training group of air force (hereinafter “instant design service contract”) and entered into a design service contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant design service contract”).

B. On June 1, 2013, the Defendant completed and submitted to the Plaintiff the design documents under the instant design contract (hereinafter “instant design documents”).

C. Around June 2013, the Plaintiff selected the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

In accordance with the instant construction contract, the Intervenor’s Intervenor installed the steel beam pole in accordance with the instant construction contract, and was found to have been rupture (hereinafter “instant defect”) on April 2, 2014, where the steel frame installed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the rupture pole, and the rupture (hereinafter “instant defect”) was found in support of the lower part of the steel pole.

E. After the occurrence of the instant defect, the Plaintiff carried out the reinforcement work with additional costs of KRW 198,626,540 in order to correct the said defect and complete the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements as to Gap's evidence 1 to 5, 7 to 10, Gap's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion is erroneous as follows in preparing the instant design documents.