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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

A. The plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the manufacturing industry, and the defendant is an incorporated association that calculates development charges and reports as proxy.

B. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the content that the Defendant delegates the work of calculating development charges, etc. for the construction of B factory sites to the Defendant at KRW 2.75,000 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant service contract”) and entered into a special agreement stating that “The development charges will cover approximately KRW 37,000,000.”

C. On September 30, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a facsimile message stating that “The amount of development charges of paragraph (4) is expected to be imposed: KRW 0,000,000,000,” and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,750,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

However, on February 2015, 2015, in contrast to the Defendant’s expectation, the Gisung City imposed development charges of KRW 56,275,130 (hereinafter “instant development charges”) on the Plaintiff, and imposed additional charges of KRW 1,688,250 (hereinafter “instant additional charges”) on the Plaintiff, depending on the fact that the development charges were not paid by August 8, 2015, the payment deadline.

E. Around January 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the service fees, and the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant calculated the development charges by mistake, and that it would return them by the end of February 2016.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment as to the claim for the refund of service costs, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would deposit the service costs to the Plaintiff by the end of February 26, 2016, and that on February 29, 2016, the cancellation of the tax invoice issued by the Defendant would be difficult, and that the Plaintiff would return the service costs based on the issuance of the tax invoice by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the scope of the return, the following facts are that ① the Defendant did not specify the scope of the return of service costs, and ② the Defendant’s tax invoice for the return of service costs to the Plaintiff.