The defendant's KRW 88,00,000 and its relation to the plaintiff shall be 6% per annum from July 15, 2020 to October 5, 2020.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant and D Co., Ltd. entered into a service contract (hereinafter "the service contract of this case") with respect to investment that D Co., Ltd. takes into account to the defendant on Jan. 13, 2020 (specific investment content is the acquisition of the defendant's shares) on which D Co., Ltd. requested services, such as financial and tax due diligence, etc. (hereinafter "the service contract of this case"). ② According to the service contract of this case, in the event the acquisition of shares between the defendant and D Co., Ltd is in the absence of negotiations, the defendant agreed to pay the above service payment to the plaintiff within two weeks of receipt of the service payment request. ③ After the plaintiff conducted all of the services pursuant to the service contract of this case, the negotiation on the share between the defendant and D Co., Ltd. on Jun. 11, 2020, the plaintiff claimed the service payment to the defendant on June 30, 2006.

According to the above facts, the acquisition of shares between the defendant and D Co., Ltd. has a duty to pay service costs under the service contract of this case as the contract negotiations have been concluded finally.

As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the service price of KRW 88 million (including value added tax) under the service contract of this case and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from July 15, 2020 to October 5, 2020, when the original copy of the payment order of this case was served on the defendant from July 15, 2020 to the date when the plaintiff demanded payment of the above service price of the service price of this case was paid to the defendant.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.