1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall make an annexed Form 2 of the second floor among the buildings listed in the annexed Table 1 list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the attached Table 1, which was constructed on the 10th 10-ro, Songpa-gu Seoul Olympic Games (hereinafter “instant building”) is a main complex building consisting of apartment buildings, officetels, and commercial buildings.

B. From September 12, 2008, the date of approval for use, the instant building was managed by the Integrated Representative Meeting (hereinafter “Integrated Representative Meeting”) composed of the representatives from all occupants of the instant building. On January 2, 2014, officetels and commercial owners of the instant building constituted a separate representative management body and established the Plaintiff, the instant building’s portion of officetels and commercial buildings among the instant buildings became the management body of each of the instant apartment units.

C. After that, the Defendant occupied the portion of the instant building, which was linked in sequence to each point of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 1 of Attached 2 drawings of the second floor among the instant building (hereinafter “instant unit”) and independently managed it.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including the number of evidences available; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s annual conference room is the section for common use of officetels owners among the instant buildings, the Defendant is exclusively in charge and possession. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to suspend the management of the annual conference room of this case and to deliver the instant annual conference room to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s annual meeting room of this case is not only the instant sectional owners but also the section for common use provided to all apartment sectional owners for common use. Thus, Defendant’s annual meeting room of this case cannot respond to Plaintiff’s request.

3. Determination

A. The legal doctrine belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners.

However, only some of the sectional owners are provided for public use.