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

A. On June 24, 1995, the Plaintiff, as a non-profit culture and arts organization, entered into a contract for construction works with a Tranchi Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “bridge construction”) on April 23, 1996 in order to acquire the instant land from the 923-6 site, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and 4,379.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and to build the art hall of the size of 46,591.59 square meters on the ground above the 5th ground surface (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). From the 25th of the same month, the Plaintiff, as a non-profit corporation, entered into a contract for construction works (hereinafter

B. (25 December 25, 1998) the scheduled date of completion.

The Plaintiff was planned to prepare the said construction cost as a security deposit to be received by leasing the instant building after completion of the building from September 18, 1996 to November 14, 1998, with the government subsidy necessary for the construction of the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s own cash, government subsidy (the Plaintiff received KRW 16.5 million from September 18, 1996 to November 14, 1998), and the two-use construction, reflecting the Plaintiff’s plan for the procurement of construction cost, shall be paid 30% (1.7 billion won) of the construction cost according to the process, and the remainder of 70% (27.3 billion won) was to be appropriated with a security deposit for the instant building.

C. However, after the 1998 situation of IMF relief financing, the Plaintiff expressed its position that it is difficult to normally perform the above construction work from around 1998, and on October 19, 1998, the Plaintiff extended the scheduled date of completion of the instant construction work to December 25, 200, and ② paid 40% of the construction cost according to the process and appropriated the remainder 60% as the deposit deposit.

However, on March 199, the company's improvement work for the construction was commenced, and as a result, the new construction of this case was suspended on May 13, 199, which was about 53% of the progress.

The plaintiff urged the implementation of the contract for construction several times for the two-use construction, but the date after December 25, 200, which is the scheduled date of completion of the changed construction due to the reasons such as the workshop of the two-use construction and the decline in the real estate market.