1. Defendant A’s KRW 18,100,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 8, 2014 to February 17, 2016.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, 3, and 26-1 to 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 26-1 to 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, and 28, and Gap evidence Nos. 2, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 4-1,

C around March 2007, around 2007, he delegated the design duties to Defendant A, an architect, in order to build a warehouse on the ground of 1,306 square meters in Yong-Gun E, Jeonnam-gun.

At the time, some of the above land was scheduled to be a road site, and the urban planning line passed through a boundary point located on a small west side in the straight line which connects each boundary point of both above land.

However, at the time when Defendant A prepared the layout map among the design drawings of the above warehouse, the above urban planning line was 0.3 to 0.5 meters away from the above boundary point among the above urban planning line, and the above urban planning line was erroneously made by mistake as a straight line linking each boundary point of both the above land. However, the above urban planning line was 0.3 to 0.5 meters away from the above warehouse, but in the cadastral map, the urban planning line had several warehouses.

B. On April 16, 2007, the Korea Land Information Corporation, upon request by C, installed three boundary points on the above land and surveyed the above urban planning lines.

C. On May 19, 2007, the public official in charge of the plaintiff's official in charge issued a building permit for the above warehouse with excessive defects in the design drawings. D.

C From May 25, 2007, from around May 25, 2007, the said construction of warehouse was carried out, and on June 5, 2007, the Defendant A delegated supervision duties to Defendant A.

In the process of the construction, the above warehouse was constructed in the inside of the 2000 cm of the above urban planning line than the above arrangement map, and eventually, the above urban planning line was 1m, 10.5m of square meters.

However, the defendant.