A. On December 17, 2012, the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service publicly announced the announcement on the C business of the Ministry of National Defense on December 17, 2012, and on February 4, 2013, the KSC Co., Ltd. was selected as a business operator of the said business and entered into a contract on March 13, 2013.

B. On October 15, 2013, Defendant and SPC Co. entered into a contract on the supply of D and E to KRW 700 million (excluding value-added tax) for the aforementioned business.

(hereinafter referred to as the above product of this case, and the contract of this case entered into by the defendant is C.

The Defendant implemented the instant contract and received the payment of KRW 770 million (including value-added tax) from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and issues of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s Standing F of the Defendant suggested that the Plaintiff operate the instant products to be selected from the above businesses of the Ministry of National Defense, and presented KRW 77 million as service costs.

The plaintiff consented to the proposal, and as a result, the product of this case was selected and the defendant entered into the contract of this case in order to actively conduct business activities so that KSC's G and the personnel in charge of the Ministry of National Defense can look at or publicize the excellence of the product of this case and select them as security chain of the business of this case.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the service cost to the plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

B. Defendant F withdrawn on or around August 2013, and the instant contract was concluded thereafter.

The defendant did not know of the business activities of the plaintiff and did not have any promise to pay business expenses to the plaintiff.

C. The key issue is whether the Plaintiff agreed to conduct business activities on behalf of the Defendant and pay the price to the Defendant in connection with the selection of the instant product.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.