1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a regional housing association established for the business of constructing a new regional housing association apartment at Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 610-18 (hereinafter “instant business”). The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of the resettlement management business, security and security business, etc.

B. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the content that “The service price is KRW 870,000,000,000,” and “the service period: from the contract date to the completion of migration management and crime prevention services; the payment method: KRW 87,000,000 when the migration 50% has been achieved; KRW 261,00,000 when the migration 80% has been achieved; KRW 261,00,000 when the relocation management has been completed; and the payment period is KRW 261,00,000 when the relocation management has been completed; and KRW 261,00,000 when the relocation management has been completed; the payment period is within ten days from the date the Defendant’s payment approval has been granted upon the Plaintiff’s request at the time of the arrival of each of the above migration (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

C. The provisions pertaining to the instant case in the Defendant’s bylaws (hereinafter “instant bylaws”) are as shown in the attached Form “relevant regulations.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff performed the duty of immigration control and crime prevention in accordance with the instant service contract, and the household that the Plaintiff moved to by July 31, 2017 constitutes 168 households and 51.5% of the total 326 households.

However, without good cause, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the extension of the contract due date under the instant service contract, and recently denied the validity of the instant service contract, and refused to pay the first progress payment (50%).

Therefore, the plaintiff terminated the service contract of this case on the ground that the above reasons attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant has cancelled the service contract of this case, which is equivalent to 861,30,000 won as compensation for damages arising from the termination of the contract, = the total service price of 957,00