1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 20, 2019 to April 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant entered into a service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) contracted the D development project (stage 1) basic and explanatory design services from C Co., Ltd.; and (b) concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on November 6, 2014 with the price of electrical design services in the said service area at KRW 200,000,000 (value-added tax separate).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant service contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The methods and timing for the payment of service costs stipulated in Article 5 of the service contract of this case, including the Plaintiff’s service performance, are as listed below. The Plaintiff completed the service work at each stage at the time of entry in the column of “non-high” in the table below.

The amount of the separate payment method (excluding value-added tax), 50% of advance payment (20%) in cash, 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 40,000,000 of the 40,000 the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 16, 2014 of the 40,000 the 70% of the 70% of the 70% of the bill design process (the 20% of the 20%) after the completion of the 40,000,000 the 90% of the bill design process (the 20% of the 20% of the completion of the 200,000 won of the bill, and the 30,006,000.

C. On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s claim for service fees, notified the Defendant to pay KRW 160,000,000 for the unpaid amount under the instant service contract (i.e., total amount of KRW 200,000,000 - KRW 40,000,000, value added tax separately), and filed an application for payment order against the Defendant on April 11, 2019 with the Seoul Southern District Court 2019 tea123605.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-6 evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion by the parties concerned is the plaintiff 1's total amount of payment due under the service contract of this case 176,00.