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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On December 30, 2004, B, C, and D, the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant aggregate building”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for the same buyer on the same day after completing the construction of the said aggregate building and completing the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/3 shares.

B. On the other hand, on December 5, 2004, B entered into a building management contract on the instant aggregate building (hereinafter “instant management contract”) with the Plaintiff (i.e., LAWD Co., Ltd. prior to the alteration), and determined that the contract period may be extended from December 6, 2004 to December 5, 2006, and that B may be extended as the same contract period prior to the expiration of the contract by evaluating the Plaintiff’s management performance and evaluating the Plaintiff’s management performance one month prior to the expiration of the contract.

Since then, without entering into a management consignment agreement with the defendant, the plaintiff has continued to manage the condominium building of this case.

C. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant entered into a building management contract with respect to the instant aggregate building, which is between February 1, 2014 and January 31, 2016, with respect to the term of the contract for the instant aggregate building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim is that the Plaintiff continued to manage the instant aggregate building even after the initial contract period has lapsed in accordance with the instant management contract concluded with B, which is the owner of the instant aggregate building. Since the sectional owners of the instant aggregate building also paid the management fee to the Plaintiff, the Defendant or the sectional owners implicitly consented to the extension of the contract period.

On the other hand, E entered into a mutual competition management and management contract at will, without being legally elected as a custodian of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff still holds the right to manage the condominium building of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's objection is sought.

B. The Plaintiff’s management authority was extinguished even if the conjunctive claim was made.