1. The Defendant shall calculate 1 billion won to the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from February 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.

On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a technical service contract (hereinafter “instant technical service contract”) with the Defendant and Pyeongtaek-si C, setting the service cost of KRW 3.3 billion (including value-added tax) and the service period from February 3, 2014 to December 30, 2015, with respect to D Industrial Complex creation projects for the Defendant and Pyeongtaek-si C.

The Plaintiff performed most of the duties stipulated in the technical service contract of this case, and left as a part of the topographic map publication (a considerable of KRW 33 million) work to be conducted after obtaining approval of the project implementation plan of the industrial complex from Pyeongtaek-si. The contract was terminated without performing the duties under the technical service contract of this case any longer due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant.

Since the Plaintiff received KRW 900 million from the Defendant in accordance with the instant construction technology service agreement, the service price of KRW 2.367 billion (= KRW 3.3 billion - paid KRW 900 million - the service price of the undeveloped topographic drawings published at KRW 33 billion) remains.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1 billion that the Plaintiff seeks as a partial claim and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 19, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint.

[Defendant Joint Representative E appears on the first day for pleading and responded to the rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim. However, in the event that several representative directors jointly represent the company, and registered and disclosed it on the corporate registry, the procedural acts on the part of the company are not effective in principle unless they are jointly conducted. The above response acts constitute procedural acts to be jointly conducted by the joint representative director. As such, only one of the joint representative directors falls under the procedural acts to be jointly conducted, the response acts are null and void (the above response alone).