1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On September 24, 201, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a service contract (hereinafter in this case’s service contract) with respect to a site of approximately KRW 27,000 for C employee B and Kimhae-si D, with the content of “all the affairs necessary for preparation of report documents and obtaining authorization and permission” (hereinafter in this case’s service contract), and concluded a service contract with the same content as the Defendant A, who is the representative of the said research institute, with the payment of KRW 22,00,000 as the down payment on September 30, 201 and the intermediate payment of KRW 13,200,000 as the intermediate payment on December 27, 2011, the Defendants did not receive the documents even after March 31, 2012, which was the date of obtaining the authorization and permission in accordance with the instant service contract.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancels the instant service contract and seeks the return of the down payment and intermediate payment paid to the Defendants.

2. Generally determining whether the Defendants are the parties to the instant service contract constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the parties involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the phrase used in the document. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010). In light of such legal doctrine, there is no dispute between the parties to the instant case and the health care unit, or the parties to the instant case, or all statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 2.