1. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) was established on October 30, 2013 with the consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants of the instant shopping district, a superstore operator, who was sold in lots, and reported the fact that he received the confirmation from the head of Nowon-gu on December 30, 2013, and acknowledged the fact that the assistant intervenor constituted a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act and was legally interested in the outcome of the instant lawsuit, and thus, admitted the Intervenor’s application for intervention.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below's measures are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 12(1)3 of the Distribution Industry Development Act provides that the business conducted by a superstore operator is “other business necessary to maintain and manage a superstore, etc.” (Article 12(1)3 of the same Act, and Article 12(4) provides that “The Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings shall apply to matters related to the partitioned ownership among the business falling under each subparagraph of paragraph (1) in a superstore where a store is sold.”

Here, "matters related to the separate ownership" that is excluded from the duties of the superstore manager shall be interpreted as those that are likely to conflict with the exercise of the ownership of the superstore owner or to infringe the ownership of the sectional owners when allowing the superstore manager to perform the duties of the superstore manager.

In light of these legal principles, the superstore manager is a superstore manager.