1. The Defendant’s KRW 137,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 27, 2009 to June 13, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2006, the Defendant concluded a design service contract for the construction of a golf course on the ground D in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-do (Representative Director C) and Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do (Seoul-do), setting the service cost of KRW 1.5 billion.

(hereinafter “instant golf course construction project”). B.

On November 14, 2006, the Plaintiff received services in KRW 396,00,000 from E (F, Sept. 27, 2007, the trade name of which was changed to F, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., a representative director; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment for the construction of the above golf course.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Prior Services Contract”). (c)

The Plaintiff received KRW 138,60,000 from the non-party company as the progress payment for the performance of services under the prior service contract, in total, KRW 138,60,000 on August 8, 2006, KRW 59,40,000 on August 24, 2007, and KRW 138,60,000 on the performance of services.

After that, as the design service contract entered into between the defendant and the non-party company was terminated, the plaintiff and the non-party company reached an agreement on November 30, 2007 on the settlement of the service cost that the plaintiff had performed until that time as the plaintiff received from the non-party company as KRW 138,60,000 (including value-added tax).

E. Around January 2008, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to continue to implement the instant golf course construction project. Around that time, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment services for the construction of the instant golf course (hereinafter “instant service”). Around that time, a service contract was concluded verbally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content of environmental, traffic, and disaster impact assessment services identical to those stipulated in the prior service contract.

(F) The Plaintiff was paid KRW 120,000,000 on February 1, 2008, and KRW 50,000,000 on November 5, 2008, and KRW 120,000,000 on a subsequent service contract as the service price under the subsequent service contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.