1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 50,000,000 won and 5% per annum from April 28, 2015 to October 18, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in the building design business, and entered into a service contract for the preparation of basic design drawings, working design drawings, authorization and permission, and design drawings necessary for the construction of a new housing complex in the Jeju City promoted by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and the construction of a new housing complex in the Jeju City promoted by the Defendant Company. Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the above design fees to the Plaintiff, and the provisions related to the remuneration are as follows.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff prepared a design document in accordance with the above design service contract and supplied the design document to the Defendant Company on April 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total design cost of KRW 50 million (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) within seven days from April 17, 2015 to April 17, 2015. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, which is 10 million of the total design cost (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). As they seek by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15 percent per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from April 28, 2015 until October 18, 2015, the duplicate of the complaint of this case delivered to the Defendants.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The design drawing prepared by the Plaintiff was designed by the concept of provisional design. As such, the above drawings could not obtain the so-called PF loan, the Defendants were bound to obtain the drawings from another designer in order to obtain the loan.

Therefore, the design drawing submitted by the Plaintiff is a defect that does not conform to the purpose of the contract, and the Plaintiff is due to the above defect.