1. The Defendant’s KRW 600,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 18, 2017 to November 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 2014, an officetel to be newly built on the land (hereinafter “instant officetel”) other than B and one parcel owned by the Defendant was drafted in the name of C and the Defendant with respect to the design service contract with the contract amount of KRW 840 million (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The instant contract states that, where the Defendant pays the design service cost in installments, KRW 60 million upon completion of the construction permit, KRW 100 million upon receipt of the commencement, KRW 100 million upon completion of the aggregate, and KRW 40 million upon receipt of the approval for use.

C. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a design expense claim amounting to KRW 600 million that the Defendant shall pay to C when the construction permit was granted under the instant contract (hereinafter “instant assignment of claims”); and on April 15, 2015, the transferor C sent a notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant by content-certified mail; and the said notice reached the Defendant on the 16th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C is that the Defendant is obliged to pay C the design cost of KRW 600 million according to the instant contract, since it prepared design drawings, specifications, etc. necessary for the progress of construction work on November 2014, and applied for a construction permit from the mayor on the 17th of the same month.

However, since the Plaintiff acquired the above KRW 600 million design cost claim from C to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from April 17, 2015, the following day after the notice of assignment of the instant claim reaches the Defendant.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Where it is recognized that the seal affixed to the name holder written in the relevant legal doctrine is affixed with that seal, the special order shall be given.