1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from February 24, 2017 to May 15, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a service contract with the Defendant to receive “C exhibition agency services (personnel operation agency services)” and to receive KRW 120 million in return.

On the same day, the defendant paid 30 million won to the plaintiff as part of the advance payment.

B. The Plaintiff fulfilled all of its duty to provide human resources, etc. as stipulated in the above contract before filing the instant lawsuit.

(A) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant performed all contractual obligations with respect to D Co., Ltd. (including the Plaintiff’s performance) as a principal contractor until the dispute is raised later. The above dispute is not accepted) / (Grounds for recognition) the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s 3, 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 7 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who completed the performance under the above service contract the remaining KRW 90 million excluding KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. As to the defendant's defense 1), the defendant has already agreed to exempt the plaintiff from the obligation to pay the above service price. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's statement No. 16 and the witness E's testimony alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) In addition, although the defendant has a defense that the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes abuse of legal personality, abuse of rights, or violation of the principle of good faith, it is insufficient to recognize it even if all of the circumstances and evidence presented by the defendant are examined.

(C) If the Plaintiff Company’s management manager F and G abuse the legal personality of D Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff should be held liable for the said F and G. In conclusion, the Defendant should be held liable for the said F and G. As such, the Defendant’s above KRW 90 million against the Plaintiff.