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

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of dismantling non-inter-system structures, and the defendant is a corporation that manages the building.

B. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant on March 27, 2014, with the payment of KRW 50,90,00 for the full E.G.I. pent and removal of the interior of the first floor among the remodeling works for three floors in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, as the payment for the full E.G. I. pent and the removal works for the first floor (excluding value-added tax), March 28, 2014; and May 7, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for construction works for removal of the first, second, and third floors and waste disposal works at KRW 19,550,000 (excluding value-added tax).

The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the removal of the second and third floors additional to the second and third floors as KRW 20,625,000 (excluding value-added tax) at the cost of construction.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant removal construction” by referring to removal construction and additional removal construction carried out by the Plaintiff.

On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff sought payment of the cost of the removal of this case to the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded the settlement of the cost of the removal of the damaged D shop facilities during the removal of this case, and did not pay part of the cost of the removal work.

Accordingly, on August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff posted a fluor card at the entrance of the D shop and the unit stand of the sales office with the same content as “in the exercise of the right of retention,” and “D shop shop Defendant immediately pay the cost of removing commercial buildings.” D set up a fluor with the fluor card indicated as “in the entrance of the central stairs” during the exercise of the right of retention.

On August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff’s representative E used violence against the Defendant’s representative director F on the ground that he/she did not pay the cost for the removal of the instant case, and was tried on August 10, 2014 on the ground that D was changed for the reason that he/she exercised a lien on August 10, 2014.

(J) The Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 14, 2014. As to the cost of the removal of this case.