beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 18, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant on the application for permission for conversion of forest land and the pre-assessment of the environment at KRW 35,000,000 (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with regard to the application for permission for conversion of forest land and the pre-assessment of the environment. As a result, on June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained permission for conversion of forest land of KRW 4,100 square meters among the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant, as the arche-si.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant out of the service costs stipulated in the instant service contract.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, among the instant real estate, agreed to obtain permission for the first time for the conversion of a mountainous district for the remaining portion of 4,100 square meters, which was illegally damaged by the Defendant, to implement the procedures for the second conversion of a mountainous district. Despite the Plaintiff or E’s recommendation, the Defendant did not perform its obligations such as the construction permission reporting procedure, the payment of expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources, the deposit of expenses incurred in restoring a mountainous district, the purchase of local development bonds, and the payment of the license tax. The amendment of the underlying statutes of the instant service contract made it possible to obtain access roads 6 meters wide from the date of the amendment, obtain permission for the conversion of a mountainous district for the whole of the instant real estate, but the Defendant did not cooperate therein.
Therefore, the Plaintiff fulfilled all of the service duties regarding the procedure for filing an application for permission for conversion of the entire real estate stipulated in the instant service contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff may seek full payment of the service cost under the instant service contract to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff made clear that the Defendant had expressed his intent to cancel or terminate the instant service contract due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the duty of cooperation.