1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the partial management of the commercial building part of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

The main contents of the instant service contract are as follows.

The number of business personnel: The contract period of KRW 4,739,840 (including value-added tax): the amount of business from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2017: the vehicle access management and facility expenses for the defendant's facilities, the management of the environment of the defendant's facilities, the security management of the defendant's facilities, and other types of business required by the defendant: the parking of the vehicle in shift service at 24: U.S. dollars, and Saturdays.

B. From February 2014, occupants of the instant building stated that the Plaintiff did not properly manage the parking of the underground parking lot located on the second floor of the instant building.

On April 29, 2014, the Defendant opened a general meeting of occupants to appoint B as president, decided to terminate the instant service contract due to nonperformance of management affairs, and notified the Plaintiff of the termination.

C. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant service contract had been terminated on April 30, 2014, and on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would be able to claim a subsequent claim for the interest that could have been obtained through the instant service contract, with respect to the Defendant’s intent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul's evidence 4 and 5, Eul's witness C's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the parking management personnel was employed in the underground parking lot in accordance with the instant service contract, but was suspended due to various circumstances around February 2014, and the Plaintiff did not assign parking management personnel to the underground parking lot in consultation with D, which was the former representative of the Defendant.