1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. In this case where the plaintiff of the judgment of the court of first instance quoted the same assertion as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant, the reasons for this court are the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or deletion as follows, and thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with the main sentence of

From 5th judgment of the court of first instance to 3rd to 6 second (the main part of the defendant's assertion) shall be made as follows.

“B. Defendant 1) The repayment period of KRW 110 million for the existing unpaid amount claimed by the Plaintiff is when the funds are raised, that is, when the PF loan is implemented, and since the Defendant was currently unable to obtain the PF loan and the funds were not raised, the payment period for the existing unpaid amount has not yet arrived.

In addition, the contingent remuneration is related to a claim objection case which is not a suspension of compulsory execution, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the contingent remuneration, since the objection of the claim of this case is dismissed.

In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the advisory fee of KRW 55 million under the pretext of contingent fees by mistake that the purpose of delegation was achieved as the auction procedure for each of the instant lands was suspended. However, since the Plaintiff did not actually prevent the progress of the auction procedure, the said advisory fee agreement should be revoked by mistake.

2) The defendant is not obligated to pay advisory fees of KRW 55 million because it has not received legal advice from the plaintiff on an individual case, and there is no obligation to pay advisory fees of KRW 75 million, and only two copies of the business conducted by the plaintiff in relation to a criminal case are found to have been provided with two copies of the complaint, and it cannot be paid KRW 28 million presumed to have been paid as advisory fees. The decision of the court of first instance 7th

(a)Paragraphs 2) add the following:

3) The defendant does not receive legal advice, and the affairs of the plaintiff related to the criminal case are only limited to two cases of a complaint, and thus, the amount corresponding thereto may be paid.