1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (Counterclaim) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit.

1. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the parties, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is justified. The reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial dismissal or addition or supplementary determination as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts used for repair or addition or supplement;

A. The expression "Witness A" in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "Witness A of the court of first instance", "Expert" as "Expert of the court of first instance", "Expert Witness" as "Expert Witness of the court of first instance", and "this court" as "Expert Witness of the court of first instance" shall be deemed as "Expert Witness of the court of first instance", respectively.

B. The 8th sentence of the first instance judgment, “New District Conservation Association”, and the 8th sentence 4 to 6th sentence of the same 8th sentence, “In the forum, the Defendant consents to the cancellation of the contract from May 16, 2012 to the Plaintiff.”

"All parts" have been dried as follows:

On May 16, 2012, the defendant sent a content-certified mail to the effect that he/she would later deliver his/her opinion on the settlement of service costs while arguing that he/she does not consent to the cancellation of the contract by the plaintiff, but does not have any negligence to the defendant.

C. From 2 to 8 under the table of the 16th top order of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of “a determination of an urban planning facility, farmland, and consultation on conversion of a mountainous district” was made as follows.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 1, 4, 6 and Eul evidence 20, 50, 52, 59 through 81 as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser B of the first instance trial, it is reasonable to determine the amount of work ① the amount of work provided as KRW 100,000,000 as the defendant's assertion, and ② the amount of work provided as the result of the appraisal by the court of first instance as the sum of KRW 5,00,000,000, as the result of the appraisal by the court of first instance.

① The Defendant’s task related to the determination of urban planning facilities in the instant service contract is specified.