1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. Nevertheless, the Defendant determined that the completion of construction was impossible without considering the aforementioned circumstances, and did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to correct the defect, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful because it did not have a legitimate ground for disposition or abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The addressee of the facts of recognition: The Plaintiff’s intent to participate in the project - In relation to the sales facilities and the new construction of neighborhood living facilities in the instant application site being promoted by your company, I will present our intent to participate in the project as follows:

- - Terms and conditions of participation

A. Confirmation of ownership at our entire project site

(b) Completion of change of project owner with feasibility;

C. Provision of the “liability Completion” to us at the time of the FF to cover the essential cost of implementing the project (additional credit extension is determined after consultation)

(d)in relation to the above matters, it should be premised upon the passage of the internal deliberation on investment.

* The intention of this participation is effective until December 27, 2014 only for the plaintiff, and we do not assume any responsibility against the third party with respect to this letter of intent.

1) On September 2, 2014 and September 23, 2014, the Defendant sent a public notice to the Plaintiff, including the instant conciliation, seeking the Plaintiff’s opinion on the instant application site’s ownership and the instant action plan, etc. to ensure the safety of the construction site where safety issues arise due to the long suspension of construction works for a certain period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Plaintiff regarding the plan to take measures, etc. to ensure the safety of the construction site where safety issues arise. The Plaintiff also sent a public notice stating the following:

(2) The Defendant submitted a written reply to the effect that it would take measures immediately after receiving the site from the film side, along with his/her intent to participate in the project. (2) The Defendant submitted the instant application to the Plaintiff, Si Corporation, and supervisor several times from September 17, 2008 to May 9, 2011.