1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of this court as to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. On the 10th page 10 of the first instance judgment, the addition shall be as follows.

Furthermore, Article 686(3) of the Civil Act provides that “If the mandate terminates due to any cause not attributable to the mandatary in the course of performing the delegated affairs, the mandatary may claim remuneration in proportion to the affairs already handled by him.” However, as seen earlier, the service payment in this case is a remuneration to be paid on the condition of completion of the work called “Conclusion of a sales contract for 95% out of the real estate in front of the project subject to the project,” rather than as the remuneration for performing the delegated affairs unrelated to success or not. Therefore, the above provision, which is premised on the case of a payment in return for the general handling of affairs, cannot be applied to this case (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4001 Decided May 29, 2001 cited by the Plaintiff, the Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4001 Decided May 29, 2001). It is related to whether the construction supervision contract for the period of remuneration has

(i) ";

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.