1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,600,000 and KRW 8,800,000 among them are against the Plaintiff from February 21, 2015, and KRW 8,800,00 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a software developer, and the Defendant is performing the health management system and program development business with the trade name of C.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a software development service contract (temporary placement) (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content.

The name of a contract: The contract period of D (Program Development): The dispatched human resources from October 27, 2014 to March 31, 2015: The terms of 45,419,354 won of the total contract amount of the plaintiff: The payment shall be made on the scheduled date of each month.

Amount (paid) 1,290,322 won (paid) on October 2014, 2014 (1,419,354 won) on November 20, 2014 (8,800,000 won) on November 20, 2014 (8,800,000 won) on December 8, 2014, 200,000 won (8,80,000,000 won) on December 19, 2014 (8,8,80,000,000 won) on December 8, 2015, 200,30,00 won (8,80,0000,000 won) on October 20, 2015 (8,8,000,000 won) on March 3, 208, 2005 (30,005 won).

C. The Plaintiff developed the instant program under the instant contract. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 8,800,000 on December 19, 2014, KRW 7,290,322 on December 31, 2014, KRW 729,032 on December 31, 2014, and KRW 8,800,00 on January 20, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the above basic facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price to be paid to the Plaintiff on the scheduled date of each payment under the instant contract. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not submit the outcome of the instant contract, did not submit the completion report, and did not submit the warranty performance bond for the developed product, and that the payment cannot be made on the ground that the Defendant did not submit the warranty performance bond for the developed product.

According to the statement of Eul evidence No. 1, the contract of this case stated that "the plaintiff and the defendant shall enter into the contract of this service with the contract document attached on an equal footing and promise to perform their contractual obligations in good faith." However, the defendant's assertion.