1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as additional evidence submitted in the trial, obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district only for the 4,100 square meters among the instant real estate, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to implement the procedures for the second permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the remaining parts. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the matters alleged in the trial at the trial is rejected as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following determination to the pertinent parts, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant service contract in Chapter 1 is for conversion of the entire real estate of this case, and the Defendant expressed his intention to refuse to perform his/her duty to cooperate with the Plaintiff on the ground that only part of the said real estate was performed with respect to the area of 4,100 square meters, and on the ground that the Plaintiff cancelled or terminated the said service contract on the ground that the Plaintiff, as a preliminary, filed a claim with the Defendant for payment of the service cost of 19,067,234 (=35 million won x 4,100 square meters x 4,00 square meters x 5,526 square meters) for the service cost of this case. (2) The starting point of calculating the extinctive prescription of the instant service payment in Chapter 2 is the date when permission for conversion of mountainous district becomes effective, and the Defendant’s payment of the relevant public charges on December 15, 201 or the period of extinctive prescription of the service claim is not completed.

3 Chapter 3, even if not, the Defendant had F take over the obligation to pay the instant service price on November 201, and the Defendant, at the court of the lower court on November 7, 2013, stated that “It is unreasonable to claim the entire agreed service price, as the instant service contract includes the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility, but the Plaintiff failed to perform it.”