1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2010, the Plaintiff (formerly changed: AWD Co., Ltd.) entered into a contract for the specialized management of the housing reconstruction project for dry apartments (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant, and the main contents are as follows.

In promoting a housing reconstruction improvement project, this contract shall be concluded between the defendant who is the implementer and the plaintiff of the rearrangement project management company, to conclude a service contract for authorization, permission, and all affairs due to the implementation of the housing reconstruction improvement project, and shall endeavor to implement it in good faith as follows:

1. Project outline (1) Project outlines: 50-1 Map-dong, Map-dong, Map-dong, Sungnam-si, Map-si, and Map-dong;

2. Service costs (excluding value-added tax): 9,377 won per square meter unit price x total floor area of construction;

(A) When the total floor area of the building is increased or decreased, it shall be settled with the final floor area.

B. On December 29, 2010, Nonparty A received a claim amounting to KRW 216,473,744 regarding the Plaintiff’s service payment claim under the instant service contract against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service payment claim”) by Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010TTB28189, and Nonparty A received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 216,473,744, and around that time, the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

C. On January 31, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a claim amounting to KRW 100,000,000 with respect to the service payment claim of this case as Seoul Northern District Court 2012TTTTT1430, and around that time, the seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

On July 10, 2014, Nonparty Sung Dong-dong seized KRW 258,097,80 out of the service payment claim of this case in order to compensate for the amount of delinquent taxes, such as value-added tax, against the Plaintiff, and this was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3.