A. The Defendants are divided owners of the 7th underground floor in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 14th apartment building which is an aggregate building of the 14th above ground (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

The commercial building of this case consists of 998 sections for exclusive use (former accounts), and as of August 14, 2017, Defendant B owned 494 sections for exclusive use and Defendant C owned 328 sections for exclusive use.

B. On January 28, 2016, pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Distribution Industry Development Act and Article 6(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Plaintiff reported to the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on the superstore manager of the instant commercial building, and the report was accepted on February 4, 2016.

C. From August 2015 to August 2017, the Plaintiff imposed the management fee for common areas according to their respective shares of shares on the grounds that the Plaintiff had maintained and maintained the instant commercial building from around that time. The Defendants did not pay the management fee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 18, 19, 23 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff comprehensively delegated management duties, including the imposition and collection of management fees, from the management body of the instant commercial building, and thereafter managed the instant commercial building as the entrusted management body of the instant commercial building from that time. Since February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff is managing the instant commercial building as a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act until that time.

The Defendants, the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the management fee for common areas according to their respective shares.

B. Defendants 1) On February 4, 2016, the entrusted management contract (Evidence A8) between the Plaintiff and the instant shopping district management body was concluded on behalf of the management body on behalf of the management body, and there is no validity, and the Plaintiff has no authority to impose and collect management expenses against the Defendants after February 4, 2016.