1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 25, 2016 to December 5, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On May 25, 2016, the Defendant entered into a structural service agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with respect to the construction of a A parking building (hereinafter “instant new construction”) with respect to which structural design services, including support for structural design, and field technical guidance, are service charges (including value-added tax) at the time of a minor modification of the architectural design after submitting structural drawings among the construction of a A parking building in Gyeyang-si (hereinafter “instant new construction”) and the service period until the completion of the implementation design (hereinafter “instant service agreement”).

d. The Plaintiff already completed the instant service on May 10, 2016. As such, at the time of the instant service contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the service price in lump sum at the time of the contract (Article 4 of the service contract). However, the Defendant did not pay the instant service price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 27.5 million for rescue services (including value-added tax) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from May 25, 2016, the date of conclusion of the instant service contract to December 5, 2016, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant: (a) ordered the construction of the instant new construction project to Dae-Nan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NB”); (b) on the grounds that the construction content includes the content of the instant service contract, the Nonparty Company paid the instant service cost to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant was not obligated to pay the instant service cost directly to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the non-party company for the part of the instant service contract among the new construction works of this case.