1. The defendant shall pay 78,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a business service agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content of KRW 88 million when the Plaintiff and the Defendant secure the construction cost (60%): the feasibility study of 4BL multi-family housing in Incheon drawing 4BL; the name of service: the feasibility study of 4BL PF; the down payment of KRW 176 million; and the payment of the price: the payment of the construction cost (60%): the time when the investment was completed; the amount of KRW 88 million; and the amount of KRW 88 million.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 88 million to the Plaintiff out of the amount under the instant contract, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 88 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On March 13, 2015, May 8, 2015, and July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that demands deposit of KRW 88 million, respectively. D.

On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the Defendant under Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2015 tea7663, and the Defendant transferred KRW 10 million via A on September 3, 2015, and withdrawn the payment order on September 8, 2015.

E. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 78 million by November 30, 2015, as the Plaintiff did not perform his/her oral agreement to pay each month in installments.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid service cost of KRW 78 million.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he paid the full amount of KRW 88 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of A on November 27, 2014. However, even if the defendant remitted the total amount of KRW 88 million to A, there is no evidence to acknowledge it as repayment to the plaintiff, and even if it is recognized that A remitted the total amount of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff and the defendant remitted the total amount of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the defendant's repayment has the effect of paying the remainder of KRW 78 million that the defendant remitted to A.

Therefore, this is different.