1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the ancillary claim of the Plaintiff, as added at the trial,

A. The defendant.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are partly added as follows. The "additional Judgment" as stated in the following Paragraph 2 is added to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the court of first instance after the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment on the claim for contract deposit in the principal claim), and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The second 13th 13th 13th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “the instant service contract”). The total amount of service charges under the instant service contract is KRW 163,779,00 (including value-added tax). Among them, the Defendant’s special general meeting for the selection of the reconstruction construction contractor of B apartment reconstruction (hereinafter “the instant special meeting”) in 2017 includes KRW 33,00,000 of the price to be paid to the Plaintiff as the contingent remuneration in the event that the instant general meeting is held as a gender. In addition, according to the “detailed statement” attached to the instant contract, the Plaintiff was planned to perform duties concerning the preparation and holding of the general meeting, such as the progress of the instant special meeting and the preparation of the general meeting.

(2) The following shall be added to the 3rd written judgment of the court of the first instance (as shown in the attached Form).

Before and after the conclusion of the instant service contract, the Plaintiff performed duties such as the establishment of office leasing, general assembly rental, and expendable goods, etc. to perform the duties under the instant service contract.

E. Meanwhile, immediately after the conclusion of the instant service contract, Nonparty D, a member of the Defendant, filed a civil petition with the purport that the Plaintiff was not a management entity specialized in improvement projects under the Urban Improvement Act in Bupyeong-gu, and the Defendant received administrative guidance from Bupyeong-gu to the effect that the instant service contract with the Plaintiff contradicts the provisions of Article 69(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s intent to terminate the instant service contract to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2017 as of June 4, 2017.