All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts based on which there is no dispute over the details of the relevant disposition or facts (based on recognition), A1, and the purport of the entire pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff’s status is the Plaintiff’s trade association established on June 1966 with the aim of increasing common interests among certified architects who conduct construction business in the Gyeongbuk Kim-cheon area.

As of the end of 2016, the number of members of the plaintiff is 30, and the amount of the budget is 311,221,594, the plaintiff did not compile the budget, and the amount of income in 2016 shall be deemed as the budget.

(b).

1) A certified architect qualification and the scope of services may be provided by a certified architect through a qualifying examination under the Certified Architects Act, and by establishing an architect office and reporting it to the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. A certified architect is engaged in planning, architectural design, ex post facto design and management, and supervision conducted at the construction site. Of these, supervision is a business that confirms the suitability of construction design and construction materials, etc. and is divided into supervision conducted by a specialized construction firm or a certified architect depending on the scale of construction, such as construction cost and number of households. 2) A certified architect in the Kimcheon-cheon area as of the end of 2016, in total 36, and among these, a certified architect who belongs to the Plaintiff is 30, in total, 83.3% of the entire certified architect in the Kim

C. The Plaintiff’s act 1) The Gyeonggi-do Building Construction Supervision Management Council (hereinafter “Seoul-do Construction Supervision Council”)

On February 24, 2012, in the case of a member who has received supervision services on February 24, 2012 and who has reached the maximum amount of KRW 20,000,000, the number of new supervision services is restricted (hereinafter “the total amount of supervision services received”).

) Since then, as a certain local building society requires to lower the upper limit amount, on May 8, 2012, each local building society voluntarily determines whether to enforce a supervision service contract and the upper limit amount. 2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff is at the monthly session of May 11, 2012.