1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

1) Gwangju Metropolitan City is the C Corporation on November 7, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Corporation”).

(C) the full-time responsible supervision service (hereinafter “instant service”)

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Bank of Dispute Resolution Engineering, agree to jointly supply and demand the instant services, and the Defendant shall be the representative of the joint supply and demand organization, and the Plaintiff shall conduct the supervision of the instant construction projects concerning the information and communications, and the Defendant shall prepare a joint supply and demand agreement on the joint supply and demand of the instant construction projects by sharing the supervision of the construction projects among the instant construction projects, and a joint supply and demand agreement by sharing the supervision of the construction projects among the instant construction projects, and a joint supply and demand agreement by sharing the supervision of the construction projects between the instant construction projects and fire-fighting projects, respectively.

3) In accordance with the above joint supply and demand standard agreement, the Defendant is a joint supply and demand firm with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as a joint purchase and sale firm, and as its representative, changed the total service cost to KRW 1,005,000,000 with Gwangju Metropolitan City on December 19, 2013 (after this, KRW 1,0645,930,000).

3) As to the instant service contract, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to perform the instant service (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

B) The Plaintiff and the Defendant received the service payment from the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a representative of a joint supply and demand company, claimed the service payment from the members in Gwangju Metropolitan City [the Plaintiff 6.6%, Defendant 75.7%, and engineering 17.7%, which is the dispute settlement agreement, and Gwangju Metropolitan City paid KRW 70,284,976 equivalent to approximately 6.6% of the total supervision cost to the Plaintiff as the service payment, and KRW 806,151,412 to the Defendant, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) agreements;