Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and such cancellation shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 1. This part of the basic facts is based on Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) According to the above fact-finding as to the claim for agreed amount, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff advance payment of KRW 110,000,000 and delayed damages, barring any special circumstance.

2) First, the defendant asserts that the service contract of this case is null and void as a false representation.

However, in order to establish false conspiracy, there is a difference between the truth and indication of expression of intent and the other party’s agreement as to the discrepancy (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89068, Nov. 13, 2014, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone does not coincide with the truth and indication in the conclusion of the instant service contract, or there was an agreement between the original Defendant as to the inconsistency.

The defendant's assertion in this part is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B) Next, the Defendant asserts that even if the instant service contract is valid, the agreement was rescinded on May 2018.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, B, around May 29, 2018, the fact that, as a representative director of the plaintiff and D's children, the representative director of the defendant and the E's actual E's E's E's representative director, the mediation contract was concluded, but the agreement of this case between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the two corporations was rescinded.

The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, and there is no other evidence to prove this differently.

C) Finally, the Defendant, as a contractor, concluded the instant service contract against the Plaintiff, who is the subcontractor pursuant to Article 673 of the Civil Act.