In the lawsuit of this case.

A. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”), the Plaintiff is a management body established by consisting of sectional owners of A building, a commercial building, the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground C (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and the Defendant is a sectional owner who owns the third floor D and E among the instant commercial buildings.

B. The plaintiff does not have the management rules set lawfully in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Aggregate Buildings Act.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The management body of the instant commercial building is not the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is filed by a person who has no standing to sue. 2) Since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit claiming management expenses (this Court Decision 2015Na1165, hereinafter “previous lawsuit”) filed against the Defendant against the Defendant was partially winning judgment of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit claiming management expenses (this Court Decision 2015Na165, hereinafter “previous lawsuit”), the lawsuit in this case overlapping with

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding the standing to sue and who is asserted as a person holding the standing to sue from him/her as a person holding the standing to sue, and thus, the existence of standing to sue in his/her own assertion is unfair, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant do not need to be either the person holding the right to demand performance or the person performing the obligation to be responsible for performance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). As long as the Plaintiff sought management expenses against the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s standing to sue can be acknowledged upon his/her own claim. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion in this part is without merit. 2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence No. 5 (including provisional numbers, and hereinafter the same), the Defendant on May 25, 2017 in the previous lawsuit, from December 25, 2013 to July 16, 2016.