1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a management body composed of sectional owners of the building A (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Defendant was entrusted with the management of the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff was the head of the management office of the instant commercial building as an employee of the New Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Co., Ltd.”). The Plaintiff was also a co-defendant, and the Plaintiff was also a co-defendant, and the lawsuit against the said company was withdrawn.

B. From February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service management contract (hereinafter “instant management contract”) under which the Plaintiff outsourced the management of the instant commercial building’s joint use, management, guard, cleaning, etc. from the date of February 1, 2011 to the date of January 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff continued to perform the management of the instant commercial building without explicit renewal or re-contract even after the expiration of the said contract term.

C. Among them, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, etc. to withdraw the instant management contract as of January 31, 2015, on the ground that the management fee utilization of the Defendant, etc. and the management unfaithfully performed, etc., on December 2014 and January 31, 2015, notified the termination of the instant management contract to the Defendant, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant et al. continued the management act while occupying the second floor management office (the real estate stated in the attached list, hereinafter referred to as the “management office”) of the shopping mall of this case. The Plaintiff filed an application with the court for provisional disposition seeking the suspension of service management, the prohibition of entry and exit, and the prohibition of distribution, such as printed materials.

On the other hand, the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2015Ra20534) decided July 3, 2015 on July 3, 2015 to dismiss C as the representative of the plaintiff on the ground that C did not have the power of representation. The appeal court (Seoul High Court 2015Ra20534) recognized C’s legitimate power of representation, the defendant’s illegal management act, etc. and applied for most of the plaintiff on August 23, 2016.