1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff sent his child to the “E Child Care Center” (hereinafter “E Child Care Center”) which is the child care center in the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the residents of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (transfer on May 26, 2015).

The defendant is an autonomous management body composed of representatives from each Dong for the management of the apartment of this case.

B. From around 2009 to December 2014, F had been working as the principal of the instant childcare center, and had taken over the instant childcare center from G and operated it directly after changing the name of the representative. At the time, the termination date of the lease agreement concluded with the Defendant regarding the instant childcare center was up to February 28, 2015.

C. On December 17, 2014, the Defendant decided to select the operators of child-care centers in the instant apartment complex through open competitive bidding by holding a council of occupants’ representatives on December 17, 2014, according to multi-oms whose term of lease expires.

After that, on December 19, 2014, January 23, 2015, and February 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a public notice to select the operator of the child care center in the instant apartment complex as the subject of negotiations on February 10, 2015, and selected D (at the time of the operation of the child care center) who participated in the bidding on February 10, 2015 through two consecutive bidding procedures, and subsequently dismissed the application by Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kahap88 against the Defendant around January 2015, for the suspension of the validity of the decision to select the operator of the child care center on December 17, 2014 (tender competitive bidding). However, the above court rejected the application by Seoul Central District Court 205Ra251 on the ground that it did not file an appeal with the Defendant on March 27, 2015.

The apartment of this case is recognized as the operator after the vehicle, and the apartment of this case is awarded as the operator.