A. C building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) is located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, as the commercial building opened on September 3, 1994.

B. Plaintiff C Service Association (hereinafter “Plaintiff C Service Association”) is an organization composed of shop occupants of the instant shopping mall, and Plaintiff A is the sectional owners of the instant shopping mall No. 53 and Plaintiff B, respectively, of the fourth floor of the instant shopping mall No. 436.

C. Defendant C management body (hereinafter “Defendant C management body”) is a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which consists of sectional owners of the instant shopping district, (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”).

(The plaintiff asserted that the defendant management body was an illegal organization not a management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case, but the defendant management body asserted that it was a management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act during the continuation of the lawsuit of this case and reversed its position).

The dispute progress between the plaintiffs and the defendants surrounding the right to manage the commercial building of this case is as shown in attached Form 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 37 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A request for confirmation of authority (a claim against the plaintiff A's defendant management body);

A. Plaintiff A’s assertion is the superstore manager of the instant commercial building, which is a superstore under the Distribution Industry Development Act.

Since the management authority of the shopping mall of this case is for A, who is not the defendant management body, not the superstore manager, it is sought to confirm that the authority of each business listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as "each business of this case") has been for the plaintiff A.

B. Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83427 Decided October 13, 201, which held that the Defendant managing body's claim on the main defense of safety, is with regard to the duties of the superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act and the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and the criteria for classification thereof.

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for confirmation of the above authority is confirmed.