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

Accordingly, the Plaintiff established a plan for the purchase of the instant land and the development project of this case and provided it to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Defendant newly constructed and sold the said officetels to obtain business benefits.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the service cost under the above consulting contract to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the relevant legal doctrine, there must be an agreement between the parties on the content of the contract.

The agreement of such intention does not require all matters that form the terms and conditions of a contract, and there is sufficient agreement on the standards and methods that specifically agree with or may specify the essential matters or important matters in the future.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that a contract is not concluded unless there are special circumstances where the parties did not reach an agreement on the matters that the agreement should be reached.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da51650 Decided March 23, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da34437 Decided May 30, 2017, etc.) B.

In the case of this case, it is examined whether a consulting contract has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the development project of this case in light of the above legal principles.

According to the records of No. 1, Gap evidence, witness Eul's witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff delivered documents containing the contents of the development project of this case to Eul who had been engaged in the defendant's work.

However, in addition to the above facts, consulting between the plaintiff and the defendant, such as the scope of service and service cost.