2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. 1) The Plaintiff A management body (hereinafter “Plaintiff management body”) is abbreviationd.

(2) Defendant C and D are co-owners of the building H (hereinafter “instant store”), and Defendant E and Defendant F Co., Ltd are the companies that leased part of the instant store from Defendant C and D.

B. Defendant C and D removed part of the closed glass windows located on the outer wall of the instant store while setting up the rest of the Defendants’ stores in the instant store, and instead, installed individual entrance doors that enable customers to enter the instant store from the outside to the outside of the store.

The shapes before and after the installation of such individual entrances, and immediately after the installation, are as follows:

C. As above, the location shown on the ground plan after the individual entrance is installed in the instant store is as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 5, 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the event that the Defendants intend to change or dispose of the glass windows of the store of this case, not the section for exclusive use, but the section for common use of the building A, as such, the part corresponding to the section for common use is to be changed, Article 15(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that the management body meeting shall determine at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and at least 3/4 of voting rights

In addition, A's management rules set more strict requirements for the change of common areas than the above legal regulations (as for the consent of at least 4/5 of sectional owners and voting rights).