1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 7,954,54,545 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from April 11, 2014 to May 15, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The summary of the case filed a claim for service payment under the service supply contract concluded with the Defendant as the principal claim.

Since the above contract falls under the contract, the defendant cannot respond to the claim for payment because the plaintiff did not complete his work, and instead, he claimed damages due to the plaintiff's non-performance of the contract as a counter-claim.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Defendant, who is a software developer of basic fact-finding, was awarded a contract for the development and supply of software for the re-building of the Seoul Innovation website by the Seoul Defense Association.

On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff signed a contract (the first service supply contract, No. 3) with the Defendant to dispatch the service provider necessary for the work with respect to the part of the “promination” work in the development of the said software to supply the said work (the first service supply contract, No. 3).

On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (the second service supply contract, the evidence No. 4) with the same content.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. As to whether the first and second contracts for the supply of services (each of the contracts in this case) are simple contracts for the supply of services (the plaintiff's assertion), Article 664 of the Civil Act provides that "the contract becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to complete a certain work and the other party agrees to pay remuneration for the result of that work."

In light of each of the contracts of this case, the scope of services provided by the Plaintiff refers to program development services (Article 2 of each of the contracts of this case), and the Plaintiff is dispatched to the Defendant as a service performer a person who has work experience or qualification requirements for a certain period of time, and the Defendant is determined to have failed to meet the qualification requirements, and the service performer may demand the Plaintiff to take measures.