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

On February 2, 2003, the Plaintiff promoted a multi-family housing development project through an urban development project (hereinafter “instant apartment project”) with the land of the Dongcheon-dong 417-5, Dongcheon-si as the project site. The Defendant expressed his intent to participate in the construction project of the instant apartment project and agreed to negotiate with the Plaintiff around the end of 2004.

On December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on December 29, 2005, with respect to the Defendant’s participation in the apartment project, with a view to KRW 3,400,000 (value added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), but thereafter, with respect to the instant apartment project, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant with a view to applying the said contract in preference to the said agreement when the contract for construction works is concluded regularly

After that, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to modify the contract for construction work at KRW 3,788,00 on December 2006 (hereinafter “instant amendment agreement”); on November 1, 2007, 32 months from the date of commencement of the construction period (based on the date of commencement of construction works; the date of commencement of removal works; the date of commencement of construction works; the date of commencement of construction works; the date of completion of construction: September 2007; : the date of completion of construction: May 5, 2010); and the cost of construction works at KRW 640,175,00,000 ( KRW 3,966,00 per square).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). On December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to change the construction cost to KRW 642,515,428,263 by reflecting the amount raised at the closing level with the Defendant.

However, the Plaintiff failed to pay the construction cost under the instant construction contract to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in relation to the unpaid construction cost on December 3, 2012, sold unsold apartments to the first 80% of the initial selling price, and appropriated the unpaid construction cost. However, in the case of sale below 80%, the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that the discounted value should be borne by the Defendant.

1. Section 3 of Article 21 of the Contract for Construction Works.