1. The Defendant shall pay 86.4 million won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 31 (including each number), as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a service contract (including the conversion of mountainous districts and permission for development activities) with the defendant on January 7, 2016 with respect to "factory construction (including the design for conversion of mountainous districts and permission for development activities)" at KRW 120 million (hereinafter "the first service contract of this case") and paid the down payment of KRW 28.6 million (including value-added tax) as to "factory construction approval (including the design for the development permission of factory construction (including the development permission of the second service contract of this case) for the Gwangju-si D Day on May 2016, the plaintiff concluded a service contract with the defendant on January 7, 2016, and the fact that the Mayor of Gwangju-si may not otherwise recognize the fact that he/she applied for approval to establish a factory in the name of the Mayor of Gwangju-si (hereinafter "the second service contract of this case"), pursuant to the first and second service contract of this case.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 136,40,000 [including value-added tax + KRW 165,00,000,000 x 1100,000 won x 110%] of the service charges under the instant first and second services contracts - the remainder of KRW 86,4,000,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff as the beneficiary - 28,6660,000,000,000,000 for which the Plaintiff is the beneficiary, and as sought by the Plaintiff, damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15,50,000,000 from December 6, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion is asserted that all contracts (No. 1, No. 2) prepared at the time of entering into the first and second services contracts of this case (No. 1, No. 2) are forged with the plaintiff's seal affixed at his/her discretion when the defendant's seal impression, etc. is temporarily entrusted to the plaintiff. However, it is reasonable to recognize each of the items of No. 1, No. 2, and No. 6-1, and No. 2.