1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 127,100,000 to the Plaintiff for KRW 127,100,000, out of the above amounts. From April 18, 2014, KRW 4,140,00.

1. On January 7, 2013, the Plaintiff’s determination of the cause of the claim: (a) the strategic environmental impact assessment, landscape review, and land suitability assessment services for the construction project on January 7, 2013 (including value-added tax); (b) the “C prior environmental assessment and environmental assessment services” on March 15, 2013; (c) the “prior environmental assessment and environmental assessment services” on March 15, 2013 (excluding value-added tax); (b) the “prior environmental and landscape services on the C access roads creation” on March 2013 (excluding value-added tax); (c) the “prior environmental review services on the C creation” on or around March 2013; (d) the price for each contract was 25,00,000,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to each contract the Plaintiff is currently 131,240,00 won.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum from April 18, 2014, which is the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, with respect to KRW 127,10,000 among service charges of KRW 131,240,000 and the above money, to the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from November 1, 2014, which is the day following the service date of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim to the day of complete payment.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff has a claim for the amount of 46,450,000 won with respect to the pre-assessment of the environment according to D development projects, the pre-assessment of the environment according to E design change, the pre-assessment of the environment according to the F-Industrial District Designation, and the pre-assessment of the environment according to the G-Industrial District Unit Planning, the above settlement claim should be deducted from the plaintiff's service payment claim.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the service as alleged above. [In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 11 through 15 (including serial number), the above assertion is identical.