1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from June 28, 2013 to May 29, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that aims at the construction business, etc., and the defendant operates an architect with the trade name "B architect office".

B. The Defendant was entrusted by C with the design, construction, and supervision of multi-family houses located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, and was determined and contracted to the Plaintiff on April 30, 201 as the construction cost of the construction of the said multi-family house at KRW 434,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and as the scheduled completion date of the development project.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). C.

After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reflected the amount of compensation for losses incurred from additional construction, non-construction, and non-construction, around July 2012, and settled the construction cost under the instant construction contract as KRW 414,00,000 (excluding value-added tax); according to mutual agreement, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice as KRW 200,000,000, and the value-added tax accordingly was also settled at the time of payment of the balance of settlement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement agreement”). D.

During the period from January 31, 2012 to September 3, 2012, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 424,000,000 in total as the construction cost of the instant case (i.e., KRW 10,000 equivalent to the value-added tax of KRW 414,00,000 for the construction cost).

E. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 100,000 (value-added tax of KRW 10,000,000) (value-added tax) and thereafter, issued a tax invoice of KRW 220,000,000 (value-added tax of KRW 220,000) as of March 31, 2013, and ② tax invoice of KRW 94,000,00 (value-added tax of KRW 94,40,000) as of June 30, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) First, the Defendant settled the construction cost under the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff as KRW 414,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

However, even if the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, the Defendant is above the Plaintiff.