1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering additional payment is revoked.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff conducted all of the instant services (except for the groundwater impact assessment services equivalent to KRW 21,50,000 which have not been performed due to the lack of necessity), and conducted additional services equivalent to KRW 17,600,000. The defendant must pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 130,410 [the sum excluding the down payment of KRW 25,30,000 and the down payment of KRW 93,390,000 which has been paid to the plaintiff and the direct payment of KRW 93,390,00 which has agreed to be made with the subcontractor].

B. Since the Plaintiff failed to complete the instant service, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the service cost.

Even if the plaintiff's claim for service payment exists, and the plaintiff has not completed the service in this case until now, it is necessary to pay compensation for delay to the defendant, and if the plaintiff offsets the plaintiff's claim for service payment with the defendant's claim for compensation for delay, the plaintiff's claim for service payment does not exist

3. Determination

A. (1) As to whether the Plaintiff completed the instant service, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments written in Evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, and 13, the Defendant submitted an application for authorization of the implementation plan for the project of urban/Gun planning facilities to the head of Gun around June 2014 based on the instant service performed by the Plaintiff, along with the written environmental impact assessment to the head of Gun. On August 11, 2014, the YA requested consultation on the said written environmental impact assessment to the Yeongsan River basin Environmental Office around August 11, 2014, and the Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office notified the details of consultation on the said written environmental assessment to the YA on September 17, 2014.

The plaintiff, however, Article 52 (2) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.