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

A. Prior contract 1) The Defendant is a food waste in Daejeon D and E-gu, etc. (hereinafter “math food and drink”).

A) The Defendant is a company collecting and treating the remaining food. The Defendant treated wastewater discharged in the course of treating the remaining food by discharging it into the sea through a commissioning company. As the amendment of Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Environment Management Act was made on December 29, 2011, the discharge of food wastewater into the sea was prohibited from January 1, 2013. (2) In order to discharge wastewater generated in the course of treating the remaining food in accordance with the standards set forth in the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof, the Defendant entered into a “contract for the installation and operation of wastewater treatment facilities” with the Defendant on July 28, 2010 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(B) No. 1-3, 200, 200, 2000, 300,000,000,000,000

Article 8 (Completion of Construction Works) (1) The completion of construction of this contract shall meet the following standards:

2. To meet the discharge standards provided for in the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, as a result of the request for a sample analysis to an authorized institution recognized by Gap (the defendant) three times at intervals of 15 days in the course of treating food and waste water of 100 tons a day;

5. The non-party company established the wastewater treatment facilities around March 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the wastewater treatment facilities of this case”) around March 2012.

(2) However, the non-party company discontinued construction without completing construction works as stipulated in the above contract, around October 2012, because wastewater (discharges) treated at the above facilities failed to meet the pollution discharge standards stipulated in the relevant statutes. (B) The non-party company asserted that the non-party company was not paid construction cost of KRW 2,656,50,000 under the preceding contract, and that the non-party company did not receive construction cost of KRW 2,656,50,000 from the Defendant. < Amended by Act No.