2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is each entitled to 7,500.50

A. On June 2016, the Defendants planned to newly build and sell a house on a total of 7,260 square meters, including 3,758 square meters and 13 square meters in the wife population D 3,758 square meters and 13 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendants, including the combination and subdivision of land, planned to apply for permission for development activities and change of a person permitted to engage in development activities, including the combination and subdivision of land, and entrusted the Plaintiff with the affairs of filing an application for permission for development activities and change of a person permitted to engage in development activities, as KRW 50

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). B.

The contract was not prepared separately at the time of the instant service contract. The Plaintiff issued a written estimate (Evidence A7) to the Defendants stating “The Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 22,187,700, and KRW 34,000,000, written permission for development activities, as well as the amount of KRW 187,70,000, and KRW 56,000,000, respectively, of the construction cost.”

C. On June 29, 2016, the Defendants paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the instant service costs.

The plaintiff was not subject to permission for development activities and change of a person permitted to engage in development activities under the instant service contract from the Ministry of the Population and Population in Yongsan-si.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 8, each fact inquiry result against the wife population administration at the time of acceptance by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claim

A. 1) Plaintiff (1) agreed to pay the design cost separately at the time of the instant service agreement. ② The Plaintiff provided the Defendants with the drawings and the attached documents necessary for the permission of the instant real estate development activities (Evidence A through A No. 14) and fulfilled all the obligations under the instant service agreement. ③ The Plaintiff has a claim for service cost and design cost as indicated below. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,172,00 (the Defendant, respectively, KRW 23,586,00,00, excluding the amount to be deducted from the sum of the instant service cost and design cost of KRW 80,159,000, 000, excluding the amount to be deducted from KRW 32,987,000.