1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that there is no dispute is an aggregate building consisting of sales facilities, neighborhood living facilities, etc., and apartment buildings consisting of main apartment buildings from the 6th underground floor in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul to the 24th above ground (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendants are co-owners who were awarded a successful bid for the 1st underground floor F of the instant aggregate building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 18, 2017.

2. As to the defendants' defense prior to the merits against the defendants, the co-owner of the building of this case, the defendants asserted that ① the plaintiff cannot be deemed a management body of the building of this case, and ② even according to the management rules of the plaintiff's principal, the administrator is required to conduct the lawsuit concerning the management expenses, so the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the management expenses, and ③ the plaintiff's representative is not the representative elected in accordance with legitimate procedures, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is a management body of the instant building (1) If a management body under Article 23 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act (hereinafter “multi-unit residential building Act”) is not established only through an organizational act, but is established by sectional ownership, it is naturally an organization formed by all sectional owners. If an organization consisting of sectional owners and meets the purport of Article 23 (1) of the Multi-unit residential Building Act, it can play a role as a management body regardless of its form of existence or name. Even if a management body consisting of sectional owners and non- sectional owners, it can concurrently play a role as a management body consisting solely of sectional owners.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27199, Aug. 23, 1996). (2) In full view of the following, the Plaintiff’s statement as to the following: (a) Doctrine, “A” No. 17-1 through 4, and “A”’s statement, the entire purport of the pleading is as follows.