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

A. CHousing Reconstruction and Rearrangement Association (hereinafter “instant reconstruction association”) is, on July 3, 2008, a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association approved to establish a housing reconstruction project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, in a project site with the aggregate of 38,258 square meters of 87 square meters and Dosan City, Asan-si and Do, in order to implement a housing reconstruction project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

B. At the time of October 2013, E, the president of the said reconstruction association, was aware of the Plaintiff while seeking to normalize the operation of the association, and was to delegate the Plaintiff’s business affairs to the Plaintiff, such as termination of the contract with the Dongdong L&C Co., Ltd., a business entity for the existing services contract, and selection of a new construction project.

C. On November 27, 2013, the instant reconstruction association issued to the Plaintiff a power of delegation stating that “The instant reconstruction association as the representative of the instant reconstruction association, and delegated all of the decision-making rights on the cancellation or termination of the contract for specialized management of rearrangement projects between the said reconstruction association and the same D&C.”

The Plaintiff, along with Nonparty F and G, established a new corporation that has obtained a license for the rearrangement project management business, and entered into a new rearrangement project management service contract with the reconstruction association of the instant case, and established the Defendant Company whose representative director is H on May 23, 2014.

E. On July 26, 2014, the instant reconstruction association entered into a contract for specialized management of rearrangement projects (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant on July 28, 2014, following a resolution by the members’ general meeting. The Plaintiff participated as the Defendant’s representative at the time of entering into the said service contract.

F. According to the service contract of this case, the defendant set forth matters from the reconstruction association of this case under Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, i.e., support for cooperative operation, review of feasibility and general implementation plan.