1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff asserted with the defendant, (1) 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the environment and disaster assessment service of the processing plant at the time of the receipt of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. (2) 49,500,00,000,00 for the environment, disaster, and traffic impact assessment service of the establishment of the district unit plan in the Jinyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City at the time of Namyang-si, and concluded each service contract and performed all of the services. Therefore, the defendant must pay the plaintiff the down payment of KRW 24,750,00,00 for the service cost of the processing plant in the Namyang-gu, Namyang-gu,

The defendant agreed to pay the service fees to the plaintiff by receiving service fees from the employer when the permission of the above factory is granted with respect to the service of the astronomical factory for the defendant's argument.

However, since the business was discontinued due to the circumstances of the business owner and the authorization of the competent administrative agency was not granted, the defendant is not obligated to pay the service cost.

In relation to the services of the Southern Yangyang-si District, if the project passes through the “Proposal” phase and the “making” was agreed to enter into a contract on a regular basis, but since the project is not possible in the proposal phase, the defendant is not obliged to pay the service cost.

Judgment

The fact that the plaintiff provided the defendant with an assessment report on the environment and disaster impact of the astronomical Sea Adjustment Factory on November 28, 2012 and on August 2013, 2013 does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff provided the defendant to the defendant on or around August 2013.

However, in order to claim the performance of the contract, the plaintiff must assert and prove the terms and conditions of the contract (including the timing of payment, the existence of the terms and conditions, and the fulfillment thereof).

① The Plaintiff did not prepare a contract with the Defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that the certificate No. 9 is the contract for the service of the Namyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area, but the contract does not have the signature and seal of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the contents are 50% of the service price as contract deposit.