1. The defendant shall be divided into KRW 33,950,00 and KRW 4,900,000 and each of the above.

1. Basic facts - Plaintiffs are corporations primarily engaged in environmental consulting, impact assessment agencies, traffic, and accident impact assessment agencies. -

Plaintiff

Songcheon-gu, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Songcheon-gu,") performed environmental impact assessment or pre-disaster impact assessment services with respect to the project to create a living in the south-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, the power transmission area factories, the factory in the Yancheon-gu, the factory in the Yancheon-gu, the factory in the Yannam-gu, the factory in the Yan

Plaintiff

Down Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's subdivision") performed environmental impact assessment and pre-disaster impact assessment services related to the project for the creation of a project for the creation of a village living facility in Dong-gu, Nam-gu and Dong-gu.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 5-10 evidence (including attachment of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they performed the above services upon entering into each service contract with the defendant. The plaintiff Songsung received KRW 15,000,000, out of the total service cost of KRW 48,950,000, and KRW 5,000,000, out of the service cost of KRW 9,900,000, respectively.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 33,950,000, and the amount of KRW 4,900,000 and damages for delay for each of the said amounts, which are divided into the Plaintiff Songsung (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

B. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant introduced and received fees from the plaintiffs, who are registered companies that can vicariously conduct the environmental impact assessment and pre-disaster impact assessment pursuant to the development project, and the above service contract was concluded between the plaintiffs and the developer. Thus, the defendant is not the developer but the defendant.

In addition, the payment of service price for the plaintiffs' service work is to be made by the development enterprise after obtaining the final authorization or permission from the plaintiffs' service work, but the above final authorization or permission was not granted.

3. Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2, respectively.