1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,00,000 and its amount annually from June 22, 2019 to August 30, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company conducting measuring agency business in the environment, and the defendant is a specialized consulting company related to urban planning.

On May 28, 2015, the Defendant contracted part of the relevant work by the implementer of the C Industrial Complex Development Project located in Gyeongnam-gun, and subcontracted the strategic environmental impact assessment to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). Article 4 of the instant contract stipulates that the service cost at the time of the instant contract shall be KRW 90,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff in cash the full amount of the service cost at the time of the completion of approval for the instant industrial complex development project.

However, the proviso of Article 4 of the contract of this case states that “Provided, That in principle, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the service cost after receiving the service cost from the project implementer.”

B. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a strategic environmental impact assessment report to the Republic of Korea Post, and on September 28, 2016, the said industrial complex development project plan was approved.

C. However, the Defendant did not receive service fees from the project implementer until the closing date of the present industrial complex development project.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. However, the Plaintiff asserted that, although the industrial complex development project plan was approved due to his service performance, the Defendant was not paid the service cost by the project implementer, and that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to receive the service cost in the future, and that the due date under the instant contract has arrived, and sought the payment of the service

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the payment period of the service costs of this case is not yet due, since the service costs of this case is delayed, it cannot be viewed as impossible.

In the case of a juristic act to which she was attached, she shall be appointed to the subsidiary.