1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant, a stock company conducting a survey and design business for the purpose of reclaiming B forest land B and 12,486 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Naju-si, thereby obtaining permission for conversion of the use of mountainous districts to cultivate ASEAN.

(hereinafter “instant design contract”). (b)

According to the instant design contract, on October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,000,000, which is 50% of the design cost to the Defendant, and paid KRW 678,70,000 on January 9, 2016.

C. After completing the design, etc. according to the instant design contract, the Defendant obtained permission for the diversion of the said mountainous district for the Plaintiff from the Naju City on June 10, 2016. The Naju notified the Plaintiff of the approval of the implementation plan for the said reclamation project and imposed the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 143,910,000 as cash or the guarantee insurance policy for the restoration deposit.

The Plaintiff renounced the land development project of this case without paying the recovery cost.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence of subparagraphs A through 6 and all pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. In relation to the design cost of the Plaintiff’s assertion, since the Plaintiff was unable to obtain an insurance policy for the payment of the restoration cost due to the lack of property payment, and the cash restoration cost cannot be paid excessively, it was eventually impossible to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion. Accordingly, under the design contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the design contract of this case on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, or the Plaintiff’s payment of the restoration cost in cash is erroneous in the important part of the design contract of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s design contract of this case is revoked.

Therefore, the defendant.