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

A. The plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs") together use the tennishead in the apartment in the case of Goyangyang-gu, Sungyang-gu, Sungyang-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment in this case") by the occupants of Sungyang-gu, Sungyang-gu, Sungdong-gu, Sungyang-gu.

B. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant posted a notice on the apartment bulletin to the effect that “In order to eliminate the parking shortage, the Defendant was asking for the pros and cons of the occupants (owners) who intend to use part of the ancillary and welfare facilities as a parking lot.” On July 1, 2014 and July 2, 2014, the Defendant sent the notice, written consent, etc. to each of the instant households of apartment buildings during this period.

The notice contains a statement that "the use of part of the children's play place in 504, part of the tennis 504, and the front part of the 505 Dong guard room shall be changed to a parking lot."

C. On July 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) held a meeting to verify the consent of the occupants on the said change of use plan; (b) confirmed that at least 2/3 (357 households among 512 households) consented thereto; and (c) made a resolution to proceed with the procedure to change the use of the teice part, etc. into the parking lot (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4-6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) The defendant distributed the written consent to the occupants, and continuously obtained the written consent even after July 7, 2014, which is the closing date of submission of the written consent, and (2) In the case of some residents, the management office employees obtained consent by wire with the consent, and (3) since all the facilities of the tennis are installed at the expense of the club members including the plaintiff, it violated the property right by continuing the removal procedure without discussion, and (4) the actual construction cost.