1. The Defendant’s KRW 77,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from February 25, 2013 to December 19, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of Gap 1-5 and Eul 8-1's testimony and the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim and Eul's testimony and arguments, the plaintiff entered into a service contract with the defendant who is the representative of the special general meeting proposer of C reconstruction Improvement Project Association (hereinafter "the association of this case") on January 11, 2013 (the client: D, E, F, G, H, I, K, K, and the defendant) for the special meeting proposer of C reconstruction Project through the defendant, who is the representative of the special meeting proposer of C reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter "the association of this case"), and the plaintiff entered into a service contract with the plaintiff on January 11, 2013 to February 4, 2013 with the above proposing at KRW 7 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). According to the contract of this case, the plaintiff takes charge of public relations dispatch of the general meeting and resident recruitment, the place of preparation for the general meeting (the date of delivery, the date of temporary completion of the general meeting, and other services (the payment).

(Article 3) Each of the above 77 million won was set forth in the notice to hold the general meeting (Article 3). The estimate of the above 77 million won was made up of KRW 7 million in the notice to hold the general meeting, KRW 13.77 million in the expenses for holding the general meeting, KRW 5,623,00 in the expenses for public relations and the progress of the general meeting, KRW 5,623,00 in the expenses for services for public relations and the progress of the general meeting ( KRW 25,11 team leader, 15,00 in the number of public relations, and eight in the operation of the general meeting). On February 4, 2013, the special general meeting of the instant association in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "special meeting of this case"). The Plaintiff was held at around 19:00, and the Plaintiff directly attended the general meeting of this case, among 319 members of the instant association.