1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In order to establish a factory on a lot of land C (hereinafter referred to as “land display”) in the Seosung-si, the Plaintiff decided to take over the E-site site, such as E, owned by D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) adjacent to the said land in order to establish a factory.

B. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a design service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant, which was known through the introduction of D on June 7, 2018, stating that the service price of KRW 14.3 million (including value-added tax) and the service period of June 7, 2018 to September 30, 2018, entrusting C and E with authorization and permission for the establishment of a single unit of land C and E (hereinafter “instant service contract”), and paid KRW 14.3 million to the Defendant on June 20, 2018.

C. On July 30, 2018, the Defendant, along with the establishment of a factory against the Plaintiff, filed an application for approval for alteration of the establishment of a factory and the extension of a D factory site. On August 30, 2018, the authorization and permission procedure was delayed upon request for supplementation more than three times from the Sungsi City on October 19, 2018.

Accordingly, around October 2018, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant “if he/she fails to obtain the authorization by December 2018, he/she would return the service price in full.” The Defendant also did not obtain the authorization by the said deadline, and on January 23, 2019, paid the Plaintiff the remaining amount up to February 12, 2019 when he/she paid the Plaintiff KRW 6 million.

The notice was given.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In addition to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., D entrusted the Defendant with the authorization and permission for a new factory site to secure a new factory site in addition to transferring part of the existing factory site to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not explain the circumstances to the Plaintiff even if the application for authorization and permission was reviewed simultaneously with the Plaintiff, and ② the part of the Plaintiff’s application during the process of authorization and permission is required.