The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition to Section 4, Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

Article 13 (Cancellation and Termination of Contract A) (1) A may cancel or terminate all or part of the contract in any of the following cases:

3. In the event that it is impossible to perform the contract due to death, disappearance, disease, or any other cause, the summary of the party’s assertion is deemed to have agreed on the progress payment at each business stage under Article 4 of the instant service contract in light of the content of the work performed by the Plaintiff before and after the conclusion of the instant service contract. The Defendant is obligated to pay the service cost of KRW 1.1 billion (including KRW 550 million at the time of completion of the contract, including value-added tax, KRW 550 million at the time of completion of the contract).

Even if the instant service contract was rescinded as the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,036,563,00 (i.e., KRW 550 million at the time of the contract under Article 4 above).

However, even if it is not so, 50 million won when the contract under the above Article 4 was concluded, prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract, was agreed on the price for the service provided by the Plaintiff with respect to the S1 site, and 486,563,00 won with the highest appraised value is not much different from the above KRW 550,000,000, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 550,000,000.

Although Defendant S2’s land is not possible to construct a serviced hotel, the Defendant concluded the instant service contract with good knowledge that the construction thereof is possible, and thus, the instant service contract is revoked as an expression of intent by mistake.

This case's service contract is in an impossible state because it is impossible to construct a serviced hotel in S2 site according to district unit planning, etc., and the service contract of this case is cancelled.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is in accordance with Article 17(1) of the instant service contract.