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

A. On April 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with a management entity specialized in improvement projects for rearrangement projects of the zone D (tentatively named DB promotion zone’s promotion council for housing redevelopment improvement projects (hereinafter “tentatively named promotion committee”) and a management entity for rearrangement projects in the zone D.

B. On August 3, 2009, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated E Zone 1-5 as a public management model zone and changed the method of organizing the promotion committee into a public management model, the promotion committee demanded the conversion of the management services for the rearrangement project into the officer election-related services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff performed the services of overall management of the election campaign-related affairs with the Defendant who was the preliminary chairperson of the promotion committee and C, who was the preliminary audit candidate.

C. From the “An election of executive officers of the Promotion Committee of the E Urban Renewal Acceleration” implemented on January 23, 2010, the Defendant was elected as a preliminary president of the Promotion Committee, and C was elected as a preliminary auditor, and the Defendant, C, F, etc. was the main axis and constituted a preliminary partnership establishment promotion council.

From March 2010, the Plaintiff sought consent to establish a promotion committee from the owners of the land in the project area, etc., and on June 15, 2010, the head of Yongsan-gu requested approval for establishment of a housing redevelopment promotion committee for the Jeju-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee.

On September 29, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for maintenance business management services to perform the duties of the said association establishment promotion committee and the promotion committee.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff claimed service costs for the service duties performed as above to the tentative name promotion committee; and (b) the officer of the promotion committee demanded a document concerning the payment of service costs jointly signed as an individual qualification; and (c) around June 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant and C were related to the expenses related to the establishment of the promotion committee for the association performed