1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim and all appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part pertaining to 4. conclusion) except where the parties added or emphasized the judgment as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court as prescribed in paragraph (3). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2.The modifications shall be modified from 4 up to 11 th six tier below the 8th sentence:

“A) According to the instant contract, the service cost to be paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant is KRW 1,100,000 per household (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to the total number of 2.40 households of the new construction design of the instant project (Article 4(1)); and the service cost is to be paid according to the contract rate (Article 4(3)(a). The total service cost is to be paid at KRW 2,64,00,000 (=240 households x 11 million), 20% of the “after completion of the district unit planning and inaugural general meeting”, “after obtaining approval for the establishment of the association”, 25% of the “after obtaining approval for the establishment of the association”, and 10% of each “after commencement of the association member’s intermediate payment, 3rd, and 5% of the members and members of the association at the time of completion of the contract.”

(Article 4(3)(b)(b) of the above contract provides that service costs of KRW 11 million per household, total amount of KRW 2.64 billion per household, and total amount of KRW 2.4 million per household shall be recruited by the Plaintiff for all 240 households expected to be the household unit of the initial new construction design, and the instant project is merely based on the premise that the Plaintiff will normally proceed until the completion of the payment of the remainder of occupancy by union members and general buyers, and the Defendant’s specific duty to pay service costs to the Plaintiff is Article 4(3)(b) of the project.

It is reasonable to view that the amount corresponding to the rate of payment in the stage is equivalent only when each stage under the subparagraph has reached that stage.

The reasons are as follows.

According to the contract of this case, the plaintiff is promoting the establishment of the association as shown in attached Form 2.