Litigation Costs shall be borne by C.

A. A member-gu building in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant aggregate commercial building”) is an aggregate building consisting of five underground floors, seven above ground floors, and 316 stores in total, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff management body”) is an organization naturally established for the purpose of managing the instant aggregate commercial building by becoming all sectional owners of the instant aggregate commercial building pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings.

B. The Defendant and the “representative of the Plaintiff’s management body” are all the sectional owners of the instant aggregate commercial building, and the Defendant was elected as the representative at the ordinary meeting of the instant aggregate commercial building on December 20, 2015.

C. On March 9, 2018, C filed an application against Defendant for a provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties, asserting that “The self-governing management rules established around October 2004 by the sectional owners, lessees, etc. of the instant aggregate commercial building is null and void, and the Defendant appointed based on the invalid self-governing management rules is not a legitimate manager of the instant aggregate commercial building, and C was appointed as a custodian at the extraordinary general meeting of the instant aggregate commercial building held on February 9, 2018 by asserting that “A was not a legitimate manager of the instant aggregate commercial building, and was appointed as a custodian at the extraordinary meeting of the

(Ogsan District Court 2018Kahap50021) d.

With respect to the application filed by C on July 13, 2018, the said court held that “the Defendant is not a lawful manager of the instant aggregate commercial building.” However, with respect to the application filed in the name of the Plaintiff management body, the decision on the provisional disposition is null and void on February 9, 2018 on the application filed in the name of the Plaintiff management body because it failed to meet the quorum, and the Plaintiff’s application filed by C as the representative of the Plaintiff management body cannot be deemed legally appointed by C as the manager of the Plaintiff management body, and thus, is unlawful.

“The decision of dismissal was made on the ground of this, and C is dissatisfied with this in the name of the representative of the Plaintiff management body.