1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into a service agreement with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant on the part of the Defendant, which provides that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor shall relocate and complete the unauthorized packaging tea, etc. installed therein under the Intervenor’s responsibility (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the urban environment rearrangement project in the zone A, in total, KRW 1.0 billion. The down payment is 10/100, 10% of the service cost at the time of the relocation of the ten business places, 20% at the time of the relocation of the ten business places, 20% at the time of the relocation of the 60 business places, 20% at the time of the relocation of the 90 business places, and 15 days after the completion of the relocation.

B. The Intervenor had performed services since around that time and transferred all unauthorized packaging vehicles from B (hereinafter “A”) around May 2012, which had been transferred, and the previous packing horses continued to operate their business at the same business area within C(hereinafter “B”).

C. In the event of the delay in the relocation of the packages in the above business area, the Defendant changed the instant contract with the Intervenor on November 26, 2012, and made clear that the scope of service is “the entire migrants who did not move within the area as of the conclusion of the contract,” and executed KRW 1.9 billion out of the total service amount of KRW 2.5 billion, and the balance is KRW 60 million.

On the other hand, on May 13, 2013, the Defendant, in the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013J85, was established a compromise with D, etc., running a package-type business in the above “B” area, and D, etc., upon being notified of the commencement of new construction works from the Defendant, decided to immediately remove the place of business and order the land to be ordered, and the Intervenor decided not to raise an objection against the management and supervision of the place of business on behalf of the Defendant, and the package-type business continues until the date of closing the argument in this case.

E. The Director of the Yongsan Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control is based on the taxation claim of KRW 190,406,710, total of 53 cases, including corporate tax for the year 2012 for the Intervenor.