1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, with the exception that ① partially dismissed the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and ② the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's assertion is added as set forth in

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). [Attachment] 420 of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance : 21 of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, who was represented by D in the relevant case, entered into a contract with a view to drawing the instant agreement on behalf of the other party C, etc.

Therefore, the advisory contract of this case constitutes both representation prohibited by Article 31 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and is null and void, and the defendant is not obliged to pay the plaintiff the service cost under the advisory contract of this case.

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the instant advisory contract was concluded to allow the Plaintiff, who was acting on behalf of the Plaintiff in the relevant case, to act on behalf of the other party, C, etc. of D, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the facts acknowledged by the first instance court as above and the testimony of witness G of the first instance court, ① the Defendant was to purchase the instant land from C, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the advisory contract on the instant land at the time of the conclusion of the advisory contract, and thus, the Defendant was to purchase the instant land from D, C, etc. to promote the freezing logistics warehouse business. As such, the Plaintiff was in an economic interest in prompt rescission. ② The Plaintiff purchased the instant land and was to promote the freezing logistics warehouse business in a normal manner.