1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of designing and supervising buildings on or around February 4, 2003. The Defendants shared 1/2 shares of each of the 178 square meters of land C in Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around September 201, the Defendants agreed to sell the instant land to D and E, to obtain construction permission in the name of the Defendants prior to the payment of the remainder, on the instant land, by bearing all expenses for the construction permission, etc. on the instant land by the said purchaser, and the Defendants agreed to obtain construction permission in the name of the Defendants.

C. On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit on behalf of the Defendants, along with design drawings, with respect to the instant land on behalf of the Defendants, and obtained a building permit around September 24, 2012. The said building permit was revoked on or around April 1, 2014.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 1 and 2, and the fact-finding with respect to the Taean-gun of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 201, the Plaintiff is primarily responsible for determining the primary assertion: (i) the Plaintiff entered into a design contract with the Defendants for the construction of urban residential housing on the instant land; and (ii) filed an application for the construction permit as above; and (iii) obtained the construction permit; and (iv) the Defendants are obligated to pay the design price stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff; and (ii) the Defendants did not

Even if the purchaser, etc. of the land of this case was permitted to enter into a design contract, etc. by using the name of the purchaser, etc. of the land of this case.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants entered into a design contract with the Plaintiff only with the fact that the construction permission was granted in the name of the Defendants.