1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which promotes B apartment reconstruction improvement projects (hereinafter “the reconstruction project in this case”) by making the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 108,347m2 as the project implementation district.

B. On July 2004, the committee for promotion of the establishment of the instant reconstruction project entered into a contract for specialized management of the instant reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Plaintiff, a company operating the rearrangement project management business, by setting the contract unit price of KRW 19,000 per square meter (a separate value-added tax and total contract amount shall be settled as the area finalized after the project implementation authorization was granted) from the date of concluding the contract to the date of completion of occupancy (the date of liquidation of the association).

The contents related to this case in the service contract of this case are as shown in the attached Form.

C. On October 31, 2007, the promotion committee for the establishment of the instant reconstruction project established the Defendant by obtaining authorization to establish the association, and completing the establishment registration on November 21, 2007. Accordingly, the rights and obligations under the instant services contract, which were borne by the committee for the establishment of the instant reconstruction project, were succeeded to the Defendant by including the rights and obligations under the instant services contract.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” is referred to as the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Reconstruction Project and the Defendant, regardless of whether before or after the establishment of the Defendant.

The reconstruction project of this case did not actually proceed from around 2009 to around 2014 due to the global economic crisis and domestic real estate economic depression.

E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant resumed the instant reconstruction project from around 2014.

The Defendant established a management and disposition plan on May 8, 2015, following the revision of the rearrangement zone, August 28, 2015, and the revision of the implementation plan on August 28, 2015, around December 2015, and received the approval of the management and disposition plan on January 2016.

F. The Defendant is D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) around December 27, 2014.