1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a design service contract relating to the permission to establish a factory on the land “Ycheon-si B” in spring in 2011 (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to be paid KRW 45,930,000 (Additional Tax) in return for performing the said permission work.

The Plaintiff completed the work in accordance with the instant service agreement and ordered the Defendant to obtain permission to establish a factory on September 14, 2011.

However, the defendant paid only KRW 20 million to the plaintiff and did not pay the remainder.

B. Although the Defendant entered into the instant service contract with the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to accept the Plaintiff’s claim, since the Defendant agreed to provide the service cost of KRW 20 million, and paid the price in full.

2. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the price under the instant service contract would be KRW 45,930,000 (Additional Tax No. 45,000). In civil procedure, the burden of proof is not the suspicion of prosecution, but the proof of fact is not the suspicion of nature, but the burden of proof is high probability that there was a fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring special circumstances, and the determination needs to be made to the extent that ordinary person would not be doubtful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 Decided October 28, 2010). In the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant at the time of the instant service contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant service contract, to have agreed on the price of KRW 45,930,00 (excluding additional tax) with the Defendant, on the basis of the entries in Health Team, Gap’s evidence 1 through 12, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and the testimony of the witness C is insufficient. There is no evidence to acknowledge

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.