2. The appeal costs.

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into an architectural design agreement with respect to construction works for constructing tourist resting facilities, etc. on the land surface of 15 million won, in relation to the land surface of Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and 7. In addition, when entering into a civil engineering design agreement with the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to receive the same amount as the service cost to be paid by the Plaintiff to the civil engineering designer.

Therefore, the Plaintiff performed all of the services under each of the above design contracts. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 372,728,27272,728,000,000,000,000,000 for the services to be paid by the Plaintiff to E, who is a civil engineering design business entity (i.e., the service cost of KRW 15,000,000 for the construction design contract) and the value-added tax (i.e., the service cost of KRW 15,00,000 for the civil engineering design contract) and the total amount of KRW 2,272,72,728,000,000 for each of the above design contract costs (i.e., the value-added tax amount of KRW 29,00,000 for the service cost of KRW 2,272,728,000 for each of the above design contract costs).

B. (i) The Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a construction design agreement on May 2015, with respect to construction works for constructing tourist resting facilities on the land, 15 million won for the following reasons: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the contract; and (b) there is no difference between the parties to the contract; and (c) the Plaintiff performed all of the services under each of the above design agreement; and (d) the Plaintiff performed the said civil engineering design agreement; and (e) the Plaintiff performed the said civil engineering design agreement, on the other hand, with respect to the said civil engineering design agreement.