A. The land D, E (hereinafter “instant land 1”) and F, and G (hereinafter “instant land”) are owned jointly by the Defendant and the mother-friendly H.

B. On the land of this case, on August 2, 2013, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant and H (Defendant 41762/440 shares, H46 shares) was completed on August 2, 2013 after the five-story residential housing was newly constructed, and on the land of this case, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on August 2, 2013 after the two-story residential facilities were newly constructed.

C. The Plaintiffs, upon the Defendant’s request, requested the I architect office to provide design services for the construction of each of the above buildings, and received a building permit for the instant land No. 1 around May 2012 based on the design drawings, and received prior deliberation by the competent office for the construction of the instant land No. 2 around September 2012.

The Plaintiffs, in the process of performing the above duties, assumed that Plaintiff A, a corporation, 24.2 million won (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Plaintiff B, respectively, bear the cost of KRW 14.3 million.

After that, the defendant changed a building permit due to a change of design, etc. or obtained a building permit different from the details of the prior deliberation, and completed the construction accordingly, and completed registration of preservation of ownership in his own name or joint name of himself and H as above.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-20 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen in the above facts of recognition, in full view of the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the process and content of the plaintiffs' handling the above affairs, the defendant's interest that the above construction would have been obtained, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant impliedly agreed to assume the necessary expenses when entrusting the above affairs to the plaintiffs, and therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff corporation.