1.(a)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is attached Form 1. On the outer wall No. 201 of the second floor of the building indicated in attached Table 1.

. It seems that the credibility of the statement in a fact-finding certificate is enhanced;

The entrance of the instant shopping mall is used by not only the Defendant but also all the residents of the instant shopping mall and all the persons entering the instant shopping mall.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant actually controlled the above entrance.

An appraiser E, based on the completion drawing in a supplementary appraisal report on June 22, 2017, was located on the outer wall of the front-water area boundary of this case. However, as a result of the on-site investigation, the said entrance was not constructed as a result of the on-site investigation, and the said entrance part was installed on the outer wall of a corridor, not on the front-water area of 201, and was appraised to the purport that it was occupied for public use.

According to the facts and evidence seen earlier of the (B) entrance and the part of the glass wall of this case, it is recognized that the (b) entrance and the glass wall of this case were constructed as a sectional building at the time of the registration as a sectional building in the building ledger, and that the (b) entrance and the glass wall of this case were constructed as a sectional building and a AL window (1200*1500). Since the outer wall is necessary for maintaining the safety and exterior of the building, it is reasonable

However, the defendant removed the outer walls of the section for common use, installed the entrance doors of glass and glass material in that part, and occupied and used exclusively in his/her section for exclusive use.

This constitutes an act contrary to the common interests of the sectional owners, and the change of such section for common use is to be determined by a resolution of not less than 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights, and there is no assertion or proof by the defendant as to the fact that the above quorum was satisfied in opening the above entrance and the glass wall, and the establishment of the above entrance and the glass wall by the defendant is the change of the illegal section for common use.

Therefore, the plaintiffs, as co-ownership owners of the commercial building of this case, are preserved as co-ownership owners.