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

A. The Defendant related to the parties is a housing redevelopment project partnership that acquired approval for establishment on April 14, 2009, and the Defendant’s committee for promotion of housing redevelopment project in the 2-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong as a project implementation district with the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment project. The Plaintiff is a specialized management entity for urban rearrangement

B. On September 2, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Promotion Committee for Administrative Affairs necessary for the implementation of the redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant service contract”) (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

(2) The Defendant agreed to pay 874,359,430 won (including additional tax) calculated as 22,244 won per total floor space to the Plaintiff under the instant service agreement, whenever the Plaintiff’s request is made, at least 14 days after the authorization for the implementation of 20% of the total amount of the three part payments was granted within 14 days after the authorization for the implementation of 20% of the total amount of the three part payments was granted within 14 days after the authorization for the implementation of 20% of the total amount of the three part payments was granted within 14 days after the authorization for the implementation of 20% of the 20% of the total amount of the four part payments was granted.

C. The Defendant, after acquiring an association establishment authorization, paid KRW 93,041,557 out of down payment of KRW 87,435,943 and the first intermediate payment of KRW 183,280,307, but did not pay the service payment any more thereafter.

On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the service will suspend the service without paying the unpaid amount to the Defendant by June 30, 2012, but the Defendant did not pay the service amount even thereafter.