1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' respective arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded eight architectural structure design services contracts with the Defendant as shown in the attached list, and completed the delivery of the construction structure design accordingly, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff totaling KRW 28,380,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not conclude a construction structure design service contract as asserted by the Plaintiff, and the services alleged by the Plaintiff were already settled between C and C as a project for which C had worked as a joint representative director of the Plaintiff in consultation with the Defendant and was individually performed.

2. As to the lawsuit of this case against the Defendant seeking payment of building structure design cost against the Defendant, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the lawsuit of this case brought against the Defendant, excluding one of the joint representative directors of the Plaintiff, was unlawful due to its lack of power of representation.

Therefore, it is evident in the record that only one of the joint representative directors of the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant on November 25, 2016 on behalf of the plaintiff, claiming construction structure design cost. However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence and arguments, C was appointed as joint representative director and joint representative director on March 31, 2014, and was dismissed from the joint representative director on January 12, 2017, and it is recognized that C was retired from the internal director on March 31, 2017, and it is evident in the record that the plaintiff submitted each of the instant written statements, including the written response of the plaintiff joint representative director D and E on January 31, 2017. Although the instant lawsuit was filed on behalf of only one joint representative director D on behalf of the joint representative director, it is evident that C was dismissed from the joint representative director as well as the aforesaid written statement.