Of the instant lawsuit, attached Form 2 Map 17, 17.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion as to the assertion of standing to sue is that the Plaintiff seeks removal and reinstatement of the alteration part of the store Nos. 101 and 102 to the Defendants through the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff is not the manager of the instant building or the sectional owner designated by the resolution of the management body meeting, but the Plaintiff did not have standing to sue to sue to institute the instant lawsuit since there was no resolution of the management body meeting regarding the instant lawsuit. (2) The instant building constitutes an aggregate building subject to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”). In the event that the sectional owner committed an act detrimental to the preservation of the building or other acts contrary to the common interests of the sectional owner regarding the management and use of the building, or where such acts are likely to be conducted, the manager or the sectional owner designated by the management body meeting may request by resolution of the management body meeting to suspend such act for the sake of common interests, remove the outcome thereof, or take necessary measures to prevent such acts.

(Article 43, Section 1, Section 2 of the Multi-unit Building Act. However, preservation activities to maintain the phenomenon of common use areas of a multi-unit building can be performed independently by the sectional owner, who is the co-owner. The contents of preservation activities can be performed independently by the sectional owner, including not only the actual preservation activities such as common ownership but also the right to claim the removal of interference based on

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da12163 Decided April 28, 2011). The Plaintiff is a building of this case.