1. Defendant A Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association: KRW 101,125,250 for the Plaintiff and its related amount from November 9, 2017 to November 1, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The related plaintiff between the parties is a corporation whose head office is located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Opening-dong and whose main purpose is the construction design business, etc., and the defendant A-A-Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Association") is a corporation established and operated for the purpose of improving the residential stability and residential life of its members by removing buildings and constructing new buildings within the implementation zone in accordance with the project implementation plan approved under Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8125 of Dec. 28, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Urban Improvement Act") around April 5, 2006.

B. 1) The promotion committee for the establishment of the Defendant partnership (hereinafter “promotion committee”)

On April 1, 2004, upon approval for establishment, published a notice of the design office and district-designated entity on April 12, 2004, and the Plaintiff and the Mecar architectural firm bid. 2) On April 25, 2004, the promotion committee held a general meeting of residents and resolved on the matter of the selection of the partner company (the selection of the design office and the appointment of district-designated entity), and only the Plaintiff attended and explained at the general meeting.

3) On May 7, 2004, the Plaintiff is a multi-family housing project of the building project district for Q Il-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is promoted by the promotion committee with the promotion committee around the same day (hereinafter “instant project”).

) A building design service contract (hereinafter “promotion design service contract”) with respect to the building design service contract

(4) On December 4, 2005, the inaugural general meeting of the Defendant Association held on the agenda No. 5 (the selection of a design office and the ratification of a contract) and passed a resolution. The reason for the proposal was “I would like to pass a resolution on the ratification of a contract with the Plaintiff selected at the general meeting of the residents of the former Promotion Committee to promote the smooth project.”

C. On December 16, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into and performed the first design service contract with the Defendant Union.