1. As to the application for intervention by an independent party intervenor, the lower court determined that the said application for intervention was unlawful, since the independent party intervenor, as the sectional owner of the building building in A and the independent party intervenor, regardless of the outcome of the instant lawsuit, bears the obligation to pay management expenses to the managing body of the building in A regardless of the outcome of the instant lawsuit, it is difficult to recognize that there is

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Defendant’s status of superstore operator and superstore manager, the lower court: (a) reported by the superstore manager; and (b) submitted by the Plaintiff on the premise that acceptance of the above report is an administrative disposition, the Defendant’s report of superstore manager and the certificate of superstore opening was issued

(1) The court below held that the Defendant is in the position of superstore manager and superstore manager of A building on the ground that the defect of the above repair disposition is so serious that it can not be deemed as null and void as a result of the Plaintiff’s assertion. The court below held that the Defendant is in the position of superstore manager and superstore manager of A building solely on the ground that the defect of the above repair disposition is so serious that it can not be deemed null and void as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the consent of more than 2/3 of the occupant occupant required under Article 13 of the former Distribution Industry Development Act (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 236 of June 22, 2004) and Article 7(1) of the former Enforcement Rule

Examining the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.