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

A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the instant building D, E, and F.

The Defendant is a person who operates the “H store” in the first floor G of the instant building.

B. On November 2012, the Defendant installed the instant signboard on the outer wall of the third floor of the instant building 24: (a) the 3rd floor of the instant building, stating 24: (b) 'H, golf, strawing, X, andPT’.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 9, 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. According to Article 43(1) and (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”), where a lawsuit is brought against a sectional owner who did an act contrary to the common interests of the sectional owners, a resolution of the management body meeting should be adopted. Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without the resolution of the management body meeting of the instant building, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. According to Article 16(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, preservation activities to maintain the present state of common areas of a condominium building can be performed independently by the sectional owner, who is a co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da12163, Apr. 28, 201). The Plaintiff, as an act of preservation, may seek removal of the signboard

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, without any authority, installed the instant signboard on the outer wall, which is the section for common use of the instant building, in violation of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry (hereinafter “Outdoor Advertisement Act”). As such, the Plaintiff, as a sectional owner of the instant building, sought removal of the instant signboard by means

B. We examine the facts of the above recognition, each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 2 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 to 8, and Eul evidence No. 11.