1. The Defendant’s KRW 38 million and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from June 16, 2016 to July 12, 2016, and the following.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, ‘creditor' is considered as ‘Plaintiff' and ‘debtor' as ‘Defendant'). 【No dispute exists, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserts that, in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the instant service contract (see subparagraph 1 of this case), even if the Defendant fails to meet the conditions for receiving service costs, the labor costs and actual expenses paid in advance are not included in the subject of settlement. 2) The instant service contract mainly aims at the Defendant’s conclusion of a sales contract for the land within the service area. The instant service contract aims at the Defendant’s conclusion of a sales contract for the land within the service area, and at least 1/2 of the area of the real estate subject to purchase (as approximately 3,460 square meters) and at least 2/3 of the number of consenters within the service area, the Plaintiff is required to pay the service cost (as purchased number x one million won per square year) to the Defendant. The Defendant’s monthly wage and actual expenses paid in advance are included in the service cost and thereafter deducted from the service cost.

3) In light of the strict requirements for the payment of service costs under the instant service agreement and the amount of service costs corresponding thereto, the provision on the payment of personnel with exclusive responsibility and actual expenses is merely understood as a mutually advantageous provision for the smooth performance of the Defendant’s work on the part of the Defendant, and cannot be deemed as constituting money of the nature of wages that cannot be claimed even if the Defendant failed to meet the terms of payment of service costs. (iv) However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the failure of the Defendant to fulfill the terms of payment of service costs, and insofar as the nature of the Defendant’s personnel with exclusive responsibility and the actual expenses that the Defendant received, it is reasonable to return the said

2. According to the conclusion, the defendant is already paid to the plaintiff 3.