1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The fact that the Defendant promised on November 13, 2017 to pay the service cost to the supervisor C, and the fact that the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff (C’s employer) to the supervisor is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the defendant raises a defense that the promise was released by the violation of the duty of the plaintiff and C.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the fact that, if the provision of services and the payment of service costs to the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the plaintiff is made, the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff to the plaintiff as such, and that the plaintiff did not pay such amount.

The issue is whether or not the Plaintiff paid the service cost of KRW 50 million to C (or whether or not the Plaintiff provided the service) and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 50 million to C is a prerequisite for the Defendant’s performance.

On the ground of the violation of the Plaintiff’s agreement, the Defendant should be deemed to be legally released.

The defendant's promise (A1) was legally released due to the delivery of the written reply stating the defendant's declaration of intent to release.

The defendant's defense pointing this out is reasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's claim for the agreed amount based on the defendant's promise.