The appeal against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.

2. The extension by this Court and the preliminary extension.

1. The grounds for appeal as to the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and counterclaim as to the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations made by the court of first instance, and even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the further determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that was added to the extension of this court and the conjunctive argument, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. As alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant did not obtain permission on the condition of land category change, as alleged by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that it obtained permission on the condition of land category change after the instant building permit and the Plaintiff inevitably rescinded the instant contract

Accordingly, the Plaintiff anticipated that the land category of the Plaintiff would not be changed, and delivered the Defendant a down payment of KRW 2,400,000 to the Defendant, and due to the Defendant’s erroneous notification, considerable damage to the down payment occurred.

As above, if the defendant explained to the plaintiff that the plaintiff's request for supplementation was not made, there was no reason to cancel the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's failure to comply with the plaintiff's request for supplementation constitutes a violation of Article 20 (1) and (2) of the Certified Architects Act, and the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's non-performance of duty of disclosure.

The damages suffered by the Plaintiff are KRW 2,400,000 paid to the Defendant in the course of the conclusion and rescission of the instant contract, and KRW 3,400,000,000, out of the damages equivalent to the performance profit arising from conditional permission for land category change, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,400,000 ( KRW 2,400,000) and damages for delay.

B. We examine the judgment, and the defendant's contract of this case.