1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,070,400 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for the establishment of two basic river plans, including the upper river basin (hereinafter “the monthly service contract”) with the Defendant in KRW 23,672,400, and around May 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the establishment of the basic river plan in KRW 91,075,00 each of the instant services contracts, including the master plan for the improvement and recovery of the Young River basin and the working design service contract (hereinafter “the combination with the monthly service contract”).

B. Although the Plaintiff completed all of the services under each of the instant service contracts, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 23,672,400 from the Defendant, as well as KRW 1,398,000, out of the price for the service contract for the commercial period, and for the master plan for the project for the improvement and recovery of the commercial period and the working design service contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 25,070,400 won (=23,672,400 won 1,398,000 won) payable under each of the instant service contracts and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 20, 016 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the duplicate of the application for the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.

B. The judgment on the defendant's assertion is based on the fact that the basic plan for the commercial monthly service contract was established in 2009 in the case of the commercial monthly service contract, and the defendant reported it to the office of Jeonnam-do, which is the ordering authority. Since then, the plaintiff established the basic plan for the commercial monthly service in 2009, excluding the commercial monthly service contract, and reported it to the defendant and the office of Jeonnam-do, and accordingly, the design budget was prepared. However, the defendant's efforts recognized that the service contract for the commercial monthly service was performed, and finally entered into the modified contract. As such, the amount of the design budget for the plaintiff's report and