1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance, including the claim of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) expanded in the trial.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is a company aimed at technical service business, survey business, environmental impact assessment business, etc., and the Defendant is a company engaged in technical service business, such as investigation, survey, construction supervision, etc., and civil engineering work business.

The plaintiff completed the payment of all or part of the services that the defendant received from each contractor by entering into a subcontract (hereinafter referred to as the "subcontract in this case") as shown in the attached Table of Subcontract Details, and the unpaid subcontract price is as described in the attached Table of Subcontract Details.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 22 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 687,032,914 won in the aggregate column for the subcontract price payable on the subcontract of this case and delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant defense that the claim for the subcontract price 1 to 5, 17, 19, and 20 of the subcontract price table has expired by the statute of limitations.

(1) On the other hand, Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall expire if a claim concerning the construction work of a contractor, an article, or any other person engaged in the design or supervision of a construction work is not exercised for three years, and the claim for the construction work shall include not only the claim for the construction work but also the claim incidental to the construction work. As seen earlier, the claim for the subcontract in this case constitutes a claim concerning the construction work of a person who is engaged in the design work, and thus, the three-year extinctive prescription shall apply (the plaintiff's assertion that the five-year period of extinctive prescription shall apply in this case is without merit).