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

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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Daejeon Seo-gu C land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around 2005, the Plaintiff requested a construction design to obtain a building permit on the instant land (hereinafter “instant construction design”) to the architectural office, which was introduced by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction design”), and paid a total of KRW 5 million on the side of the building office as the price, KRW 2 million on February 28, 2006, KRW 200,000 on May 17, 2006, and KRW 1 million on October 4, 2006.

C. On January 23, 2006, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin head permitted the construction of the instant land according to the instant architectural design. D.

On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff did not report the commencement of construction within one year after the building permit was issued a notice of cancellation of the building permit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of requesting the construction design, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no plan to construct the original building on the instant land at the time of requesting the construction design. However, when the Defendant modified the Building Act in 2006, the design cost and construction cost would be higher, and thus, the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff as benefit from obtaining the construction permit in advance. Although the construction permit should be reported within one year from the date of the construction permit, even if the construction permit was received only once, the Plaintiff could construct the building as already permitted even after several years have passed from the date of the construction permit.”

Since the plaintiff requested the construction design of this case by the defendant's above deception, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to five million won of the construction design of this case.

B. It is insufficient to find the fact that the Defendant, on the sole basis of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, deceiving the plaintiff, "it is allowed to construct a building as already permitted even after several years have passed since the construction permission was granted only once," and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The construction design of this case is requested.