2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is an autonomous organization composed of occupants of A apartment located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") and the defendant is a company that provides security services for apartment.

B. On December 27, 2017, the Defendant entered into a security service contract with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant security service contract”) on December 27, 2017 following the public notice of the Plaintiff’s selection of security service company, and has performed the said service contract with respect to the said apartment from January 1, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff limited the qualification to participate in the instant guard service contract to “an enterprise that has no administrative disposition for the last three years,” but the Defendant submitted the confirmation data for one year and five months, not the confirmation data source for the past three years, on May 4, 2018. Accordingly, the Defendant did not perform its duties under the said guard service contract any longer thereafter.

On the other hand, the Defendant claimed monthly expenses in the course of performing the instant apartment security service pursuant to the instant security service contract, which included the amount calculated by dividing the one-year retirement allowance for security guards by 12 months (hereinafter “retirement reserve”).

E. On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document stating that “The instant security service contract was terminated on May 4, 2018, and thus, during the period from January 1, 2018 to May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff returned KRW 14,763,279 equivalent to the retirement reserve of security guards during the period from January 1, 2018 to May 4, 2018.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The payment of the Plaintiff 1’s retirement reserve is premised on the work of the security guards for not less than one year, and the Defendant was merely conducting the service of the instant apartment at a 4-month period.