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

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim for service payment amounting to KRW 726,00,000 based on the construction design agreement dated August 7, 2008, and that the Plaintiff had a claim for service payment amounting to KRW 726,00,000, pursuant to the construction design agreement, the Defendant applied for provisional attachment against the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration against the trust real estate that the Plaintiff had held against D, as the Sungwon District Court support 2014Kadan61360, in addition to the limited partnership company at which he was his representative, for a provisional attachment against the claim for ownership transfer registration.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff has a claim for service payment equivalent to the above amount. The Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim against the said limited partnership company as well as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2015Kadan60286, which was held against the said stock company, on March 19, 2015, upon termination of the trust contract with the said limited partnership company, and received a decision of provisional seizure from the court.

(hereinafter referred to as "decision of each of the provisional seizures of this case" is referred to as "decision of each of the provisional seizures of this case" prior to the provisional seizure ruling of 2014Kadan61360.

On December 26, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming service costs against the Plaintiff, along with the foregoing limited partnership company, for the payment of the above service costs, etc., with the Suwon District Court Branch 2014 Gohap20923, which was sentenced to the dismissal judgment from the court on June 9, 2017.

Although the defendant appealed against this, on June 20, 2018, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (Seoul High Court 2017Na2036091) (Seoul High Court 2017Na2036091) and the Supreme Court declared that the defendant appealed on October 11, 2018 (Supreme Court 2018Da2525182).

The summary of the above appellate judgment is as follows.

① Under the premise that the service contract in effect with the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the above related lawsuit) was concluded, the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the above related lawsuit) sought payment of KRW 726,00,000 for the service cost and delay damages therefor from the Plaintiff. However, each service contract submitted by the Defendant cannot be recognized as having been duly established.