1. The Defendant’s KRW 140,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from October 27, 2010 to January 12, 2015.

1. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract with the Defendant on December 28, 2009, with the design cost of KRW 220 million (Provided, That 20% when the contract is concluded, KRW 40% when the basic design is delivered, KRW 40% when the working design is delivered), and from December 28, 2009 to February 27, 2010 when the Defendant set the execution period as the period from December 28, 2009 to December 27, 2010, with the Defendant’s planning to prepare a design drawing as to the construction work of multi-family housing to be run on the land of KRW 36,05 square meters of land as of October 26, 209; the Plaintiff’s completion of design services under the above contract does not conflict between the parties; or the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,200,000,000,000,000,000 from the following day to the date of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 2.

2. The defendant filed the lawsuit in this case after the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations from October 26, 2010, which was the time when the design service was completed. Thus, the defendant's defense that the above design cost claim expired by the statute of limitations.

The term of extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, because the above design cost claim constitutes a claim for construction works of a person engaged in the design of the Corporation. It is obvious that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 26, 2014, which was three years after the completion date of design services, which can be seen as the remainder payment date.

However, if part of the obligation is discharged before the completion of the prescription, the effect of interrupting prescription is effective as an approval of the obligation unless dispute arises with respect to the amount of the obligation.