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

A. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff organized a joint contractors (hereinafter “joint contractors”) with E&W Design Group Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EN Design”), and B, participated in the public offering of design competition with A on the joint contractors (hereinafter “joint contractors”).

On October 22, 2009, the works of the joint contractors of this case were selected as the winning of the above design competition.

On July 18, 2011, the instant contracting body was entrusted with the affairs of construction design service by setting the service amount of KRW 4,757,224,800 by the Defendant’s overall promotion committee for A Housing Redevelopment and Development Project (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) (hereinafter “instant contracting”). The instant contracting body determined the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff.

B. On February 6, 2015, the instant joint supply and demand agreement entered into a joint supply and demand agreement with the purport of changing the manager of the instant service agreement to EN design, and having determined the shares ratio by Plaintiff 30%, EN design 55%, and B15%.

C. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant service contract was terminated on the grounds that the Defendant decided not to ratification the instant service contract at the Defendant’s inaugural general meeting.

On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff notified EN Design and B of the dissolution of the instant joint contractor on the ground that it is impossible to achieve the purpose following the termination of the instant service contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 7, 10, 16, 17, 19 through 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The joint venture of this case had already been selected as a designer of the defendant's rearrangement project by the committee of promotion of this case, and the decision of the defendant's inaugural general meeting cannot affect the validity of the selection of designer

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the service contract of this case is terminated and null and void is extremely unfair.

B. The defendant's unilateral termination is justified.