(1) The court below's finding of facts and determination are justifiable even if the plaintiff submitted further evidence in this court. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, with respect to the claim for the contract amount under the termination agreement of this case, "the termination agreement of this case was terminated due to the conclusion of the second implementation service contract," as long as the second implementation service contract was rescinded on November 2015, the plaintiff again becomes entitled to claim the payment of the contract amount under the termination agreement of this case. However, the above argument is without merit, solely on the ground that the second implementation service contract was rescinded, it cannot be recognized that the termination agreement of this case is valid again. The plaintiff's assertion on the first preliminary claim (the claim for the payment of the service payment under the consulting contract of February 7, 201). The plaintiff asserted that "the non-party company concluded a consulting contract with the defendant on February 2, 201 and completed the final business report following the conclusion, etc., and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the service payment amount to the plaintiff that the plaintiff acquired from the non-party company.

The defendant asserts that "the above consulting contract is incorporated into the second implementation service contract, or the non-party company's cancellation due to the non-party company's failure to perform its contractual obligations," and thus, it cannot pay the service price.

A. The defendant and the non-party company asserted that the non-party company provided consulting services concerning the creation of the B complex on or around February 7, 2011, and the defendant provided consulting services and a contract for attracting investors with a view to paying KRW 500 million at the service price (hereinafter referred to as "the case").