1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a company specializing in construction machinery and fire fighting equipment, and the Defendant is a company engaged in construction design business, etc.

(2) On January 7, 2003, the Defendant contracted the design service related to the construction of officetels located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the amount of KRW 565,400,000 for service cost, and ordered the design service of machinery among them on March 4, 2003 (hereinafter “instant design service”) to the Plaintiff at KRW 38,000,000 for service cost.

(3) As the design of the above officetel was modified, additional services were incurred in the design service of this case. The plaintiff and the defendant settled the service price (hereinafter "the service price of this case") up to December 17, 2003 as KRW 45,100,000.

(4) On September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a design service equivalent to KRW 402,160,000,000 in total for 16 times until September 18, 2012, including that the Plaintiff received a contract for a design service of KRW 8,250,000 from among the design services related to the construction of a major complex of the Songdo City, Incheon.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the facts of the recognition of the occurrence of the service payment claim, the Plaintiff implemented each design service in the instant design service and the attached Table.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 447,260,00 (=45,100,000) out of the above service charges (=402,160,000) less KRW 402,160,000, which the plaintiff was deemed to have received from the defendant, barring special circumstances.

(2) The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion (A) is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 402,160,000, out of the service cost indicated in the attached Table.