Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a consulting service agreement (hereinafter “instant consulting service agreement”) with the Defendant with the introduction of Nonparty C, a branch of the Plaintiff on July 1, 2017, providing advice on industrial IOT H/W and S/W platform development technology (hereinafter “instant consulting service agreement”). Since the Plaintiff provided all services under the said agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the said service agreement to the Plaintiff KRW 49,500,000 (including surtax).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not actually conclude the instant consulting services contract.

At the request of Nonparty D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), the Defendant provided consulting services to Nonparty Company for the “F” project ordered by E institutions so that the Nonparty Company may receive orders from Nonparty Company. During that process, the Defendant divided part of the service cost to the said C in return for the aid from Nonparty C, which was an employee of the G Company, a subsidiary of E institutions, and prepared a written consulting service contract in form in the name of the Plaintiff, which is the seat of the said C for the payment procedure, such as the issuance of tax invoices.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot seek the payment of service costs from the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul's 1 to 5, Eul's 6-1, 2, and Eul's 7 to 13, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) Around July 2017, Nonparty C, a E-agency subsidiary, discussed the issue of introducing Nonparty C to the deputy head of the E-agency between H and the Defendant’s representative.

(2) On September 19, 2017, E sent a public announcement of the tender for “F” projects (the date of the opening of the examination is October 11, 2017), and thereafter concluded a negotiated contract with Nonparty Company on October 31, 2017.

(3) The defendant and the non-party company prepared a consulting service contract (Evidence No. 1). The purpose of the contract is to the non-party company.