1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings:

The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which obtained an authorization for establishment from the Gunsan City Mayor on December 27, 201, with the status of the parties as a project implementation district consisting of 835 and 1 lots, and the Defendant is a person who has concluded a design contract with the Plaintiff two times after being selected as the designer of the above rearrangement project at the Plaintiff’s inaugural general meeting as follows:

On November 4, 2005, the committee for promotion of the establishment of the 3 complex housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's promotion committee") entered into a design service contract with the defendant (the former title corporation corporation) on December 9, 2005 after announcing a public announcement of the rearrangement project management business entity and design office to implement the housing reconstruction project, and the defendant entered into a design service contract with the defendant (the former title corporation corporation corporation) on December 9, 2005.

On November 14, 2008, the Gunsan City was designated and announced as a rearrangement zone, and on January 15, 2009, approved the promotion committee of the plaintiff.

After that, on May 9, 2011 and June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff Promotion Committee announced a public announcement of the intent to select a designer as a limited competitive bidding method, but all failed. The Plaintiff Promotion Committee selected the defendant as a person eligible for a negotiated contract through its resolution, and decided on August 26, 201 by holding an inaugural general meeting on August 26, 201, to select the defendant as a designer and to delegate the execution of the contract with the defendant to the Promotion Committee (or the Board of Representatives).

October 30, 2014