1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded an enforcement agency service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Plaintiff, which is a partnership that jointly implements the B market improvement project in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C. The main contents are as follows.

Article 3: 60 million won at the time of the contract for the method of payment of service costs; 30 million won at the time of application for authorization for project implementation; 60 million won at the time of application for authorization for project implementation; 30 million won at the time of application for authorization for project implementation; 60 million won at the time of application for authorization for project implementation; 20 million won at the time of commencement; 20 million won at the time of completion (including approval for provisional use); 20 million won at the time of completion of the liquidation meeting; and 20 million won at the time of the completion of the liquidation meeting (excluding value-added tax) contract

1. The plaintiff may terminate the contract without justifiable grounds when the defendant violated the terms and conditions of the contract so that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and the damage incurred thereby shall be compensated by the defendant.

2. The defendant may terminate the contract without justifiable grounds when the plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of the contract so that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and the damage incurred therefrom shall be compensated by the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization of a management and disposition plan on November 30, 2016, and paid a total of KRW 240 million to the Defendant around that time.

C. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant service contract and sent it to the Defendant around that time, and on November 12, 2018, the following 2-A.

The termination of the instant service contract was notified by pointing out the causes attributable to the port.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, and Eul 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract without any ground for termination of the contract.

However, since the Defendant had already received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the Plaintiff, it should be deemed that the obligation under the instant service contract was fulfilled at least 95%.