The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the recognition and judgment of the first instance facts are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited, including summary language, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each “5,000,000,000 won” of each “5,000,000 won” of “5,000,000,000” of the 3th page of the judgment of the first instance, each of “1,000,000 won” of “1,00,000,000 won” of the 15 and 16th class “5,000,000 won”, and each of “5,000,000 won” of “5,00,000,000 won” of the 4th class below the said Table.

No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance is without merit. 18 of the judgment of the first instance.

“Unjustifiable cause (the Plaintiff, in the preparation of October 26, 2020, stating the grounds for appeal, performed the instant development project without delay by faithfully performing the duties of selecting the contractor, which is the core duties of the instant service contract, and by selecting C as the contractor of the instant development project. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff for the service cost under the instant service contract.

However, the scope of the instant service contract includes not only the Defendant’s support for the selection of a contractor in charge of the financial affairs, the Defendant’s overall consultation and research activities, the Defendant’s smooth progress of the business, and the Defendant’s proposal for the promotion of the business, etc. However, the scope of the business affairs of the instant service contract is insufficient to recognize that the materials submitted by the Plaintiff while filing an application for the resumption of the pleading as of January 19, 2021 are merely related to the authorization of the instant service contract’s implementation plan, and that the Plaintiff performed each of the above affairs stipulated in the instant service contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff

Therefore, the court rendered a judgment without resumption of the pleading."