The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On November 30, 2015, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the public service center of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi Police Station in the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, stating that “A person who requested construction permission and construction design on the land owned by the complainant (E and F) in the Gyeonggi-si, Gwangju-si, requested the Defendant to purchase the land, and all the expenses are borne by H. The landowner (Defendant) is the landowner, and even though there was no request, F and E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to pay KRW 16,995,00,00 for the construction permission and construction design services of multi-family housing against the Defendant, and, on the same day, submitted a false complaint to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City court in Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Busan Special Metropolitan City.”

However, the above facts revealed that the Defendant requested the purchase of the above land from the Defendant, and there was no fact that the purchase contract was concluded, and there was no fact that H would bear the required expenses for the construction permit. While the Defendant, the owner of the land, who was the owner of the building, directly visiting the I office operated by the Defendant Nonparty, and submitted a certificate of seal imprint upon requesting the construction permit and the construction design to the Defendant Nonparty, and issued a certificate of seal imprint to the proxy. The Defendant Nonparty prepared the construction design drawing, and deliberated on the landscape at the end of the request for deliberation on the landscape (the Advisory Council on Construction Design) at least nine occasions, but the Defendant’s act of changing the form and quality of the other land was not restored to its original condition, and thus, the permission for

Since the defendant did not approve the construction permit after the defendant's lawsuit, it is problematic that the standard contract for the design of the building has not been prepared as a civil lawsuit against the construction permit from the defendant's tenant, and H, other than it, requests services.