1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal office and the principal office.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be all filed;

A. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to receive KRW 8,000,000 from the Defendant on June 30, 2016, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a multi-household B (household) housing in the Cheongju-si Office (hereinafter “instant housing”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) and received KRW 25,00,000 from the Defendant for the service cost (excluding value-added tax). Of these, KRW 8,00,000 from the time of delivery of the service contract (for the purpose of application for permission), the remainder of KRW 8,00,000 from the Defendant on June 30, 2016, and received KRW 8,000,000 from the Defendant at the time of delivery of the execution design documents (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared the basic design drawings (for application for permission) of the instant housing in accordance with the instant contract, and applied for a building permit on behalf of the Defendant to the head of the Cheongju-si Office on behalf of the Defendant, along with the above basic design drawings, etc., and the petition head of the Cheongju-si Office issued the building permit on August 19, 2016.

C. On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant housing execution design drawings (for reporting commencement, hereinafter “instant design drawings”) to the Defendant, and received KRW 10,700,000 from the Defendant on the same day.

Around November 2016, the Defendant requested a certified architect C to supervise the instant construction work, and C responded to the purport that “The instant design drawings and specifications were prepared on the premise that the instant housing consists of 13 households, but only one household may increase to two households after the completion of construction, and thus, it is probable that the instant housing will be composed of at least 13 households, and in such a case, the instant housing will be an illegal building, as well as may be a problem under the Fire Services Act.”

E. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to the plaintiff.

The design of this case is modified by raising the same issue as the paragraph.