The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 11.

On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a service contract which the Defendant changed the service price to Class 2 general residential areas, urban scenic areas, and urban scenic districts, which are currently designated as Class 1 general residential areas, natural scenic areas, and central scenic districts, in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, as part of the Act on the D District District Unit Planning and Planning Decision (hereinafter “instant service contract”), and paid KRW 2 million to the Defendant on the same day under the pretext of advance payment.

Article 4 (Commencement and Completion of Services) of the Service Contract of this case provides that "the defendant shall immediately commence the service after the conclusion of this contract and complete the service within six months from the date of this contract." Article 6 (Cancellation and Termination of this Contract) provides that "(1) where the defendant does not start the service even after the contract of this case without justifiable grounds, (2) where the defendant does not undertake the service even after the contract of this case, (3) where the defendant did not perform the service according to the contents of the above task by the agreed date, (4) where the contract of this case is notified that the contract of this case will be terminated and terminated, the defendant shall promptly return the amount of advance payment to the plaintiff.

B. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail that notifies the termination of the instant service contract on the ground that “The 20th Urban and Building Joint Committee of Seoul, Seoul, concluded on December 23, 2015, regarding the D District Unit Planning and Planning Decision (Plan), the purpose of the instant service contract was not achieved.”

C. Around October 2018, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge against the Defendant for fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

The defendant was prosecuted for violating the Attorney-at-Law Act of Seoul Eastern District Court 2019Kadan1384, and on July 25, 2019.