A. On January 31, 2014, the Defendant C, which is owned by the principal and her husband and the Defendant B and her husband, deposited a design contract for the building (medical facilities and neighborhood living facilities) with the Plaintiff at KRW 200 million (excluding value-added tax) in order to newly build a building (medical facilities and neighborhood living facilities) on the five lots, other than the land of Seocho-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, which is owned by the Defendant B and her husband. Since then, due to the reduction of the design area, the service

(B) The above design contract (hereinafter “the first contract”). The Plaintiff was engaged in the design business and completed permission for the execution design documents in accordance with the above contract, and was paid KRW 60 million out of the service price by the Defendants. The Defendants decided to change the type of new building into an officetel. Accordingly, on May 20, 2015, Defendant B appears to be the error in the “normal settlement” by attaching the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 500,000 per month on the construction permit price to the Plaintiff.

1.2.3

A design change permission fee for an officetel shall be paid in the amount of eight million won.

“C.” The Plaintiff, while carrying out his duties pursuant to the Officetel design modification license agreement (hereinafter “the second contract”), was notified by the Defendants of the termination of the second contract while receiving KRW 20 million out of the service cost, and subsequently, decided to terminate the said contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. In relation to the construction of a new building on the land owned by the Defendants related to the Defendants and their children, the first contract was prepared in the name of Defendant C, and the contract was prepared and executed by Defendant B. The above facts are that the Defendants are married, and the first and second contract was related to the construction to be newly constructed by the Defendants.