1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,100,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 5, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant on the basis of the contract amount of KRW 82,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) in relation to the preparation of the application document related to permission for development activities of the wife B (including deliberation), forest trees stable surveys, mountainous district recovery designs, and prior examination of factors influencing disasters.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

Under the instant contract, 16,400,000 won, which is 20% of the contract amount at the time of the contract, shall be paid at the time of the contract, and 24,60,000 won, which is 30% of the contract amount after the receipt of the competent authority, and 41,00,000 won, which is 50% of the contract amount after the permission for development activities, shall be paid respectively

C. The Plaintiff received permission for development activities from the wife population around October 22, 2012 after performing services stipulated in the instant contract, but did not receive KRW 41,000,000 corresponding to the remainder of the contract amount (excluding value-added tax) from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 45,100,000 won (=41,00,000 won x 1.1) and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 5, 2014 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that the remaining payment period has not yet arrived due to the lack of permission for development activities at present, the fact that the permission for development activities was obtained from the wife population at permissible time is as seen above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.

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