1. It is confirmed that a contract entered in the separate sheet is null and void.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a housing management operator under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, entered into a contract for the management of D apartment, which is a multi-family housing, with the council of occupants' representatives of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, on April 2017. The terms of the contract are as follows.

(A) The contract term of entrusted management fees: By June 1, 2017; - May 31, 2020: By June 1, 2017: By May 31, 2020, 50,000 won (the plaintiff) may entrust part of the management duties to a third specialized service company with the consent of the council of occupants' representatives; in such cases, the consent of the council of occupants' representatives shall be obtained.

(Article 2) A (council of occupants' representatives) The head of the management office where B (Plaintiff) places pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act shall be deemed the representative of B (Article 3(1)) and the head of the management office shall establish an entrusted management organization whose general manager is the head of the management office in A.

An entrusted management institution shall have four office personnel: 11 technical personnel, security service personnel: 44 personnel, cleaning personnel: 13 personnel.

Benefits, etc. for the above human resources shall be paid to Gap, and the wages, etc. by occupation shall be determined by the council of occupants' representatives through consultation.

(Article 5)

B. The Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with E qualified as a housing manager, and appointed E on January 22, 2018 as the head of the relevant apartment management office.

C. The term of contract between F (44 security guards) and F (4) of the above apartment building is expected to expire on February 28, 2018, because the same bid was submitted in the bidding. The apartment council of occupants' representatives decided to newly select a security service company as a qualified bidding method rather than the minimum bidding (at that time, the plaintiff requested the head of the management office E to cooperate so that F (which is the husband of the representative of the plaintiff can be selected as a security service company) and the defendant in the above bidding.