2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "the plaintiff et al.") completed the registration of ownership transfer on the first floor 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, and 71 (hereinafter referred to as the "the part of the store of this case") among Suwon-si B (hereinafter referred to as the "the building of this case"), and the defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " assistant intervenor") entered into a management service agreement with the defendant on the building of this case. The assistant intervenor entered into a management service agreement with the defendant on the building of this case.

B. From the beginning of September 2013, the Defendant took measures to cut off or cut off the instant stores among the instant buildings (hereinafter “the instant cutting off and cutting off measures”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, each entry of No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The commercial building in this case has structural independence, and even if it is currently in structural independence, it can be easily restored. Thus, the Plaintiff, etc. is the sectional owner of the store in this case.

(2) The Defendant, without any authority, committed an illegal act that prevents the Plaintiff, etc. from leasing the said store part to another person by cutting off or cutting off the instant store part without cutting off or cutting off the store part.

(3) If the commercial building of this case is not independent in structure, even if the plaintiff et al. is not a sectional owner but a co-owner of some shares, the assistant intervenor is not a legitimate management body, and therefore, the defendant who entered into a service contract with the assistant intervenor does not have a legitimate right to manage the store portion of this case. Thus, the defendant's subdivision and fractional measures still

(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s unlawful act as above to the Plaintiff between September 15, 2013 and January 14, 2014.