1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D shopping mall is located in the Republic of Korea F, G, H, and I (hereinafter referred to as the “Nriju-siJ”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shopping mall”), comprised of four units, including the “Kdong” located in the said F (hereinafter referred to as the “Kdong”), the “Ldong” located in the said G (hereinafter referred to as the “Ldong”), the “Mdong” located in the said H (hereinafter referred to as the “Mdong”), and the “Ndong” located in the said I (hereinafter referred to as the “Ndong”).

B. Plaintiff A’s 4 of LA(A9 square meters), Plaintiff B’s 7 of LA(21 square meters); Plaintiff C’s 1 of the first floor of MA; Plaintiff C’s 1 of the first floor of K-dong and 25 of the first floor of K-dong (184 square meters in sum); Plaintiff Company’s Gabling consul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Park”) owned 14 of MA’s 14 and 39 of 39 square meters (total of 1,425 square meters) are co-owners of the instant shopping mall.

C. Defendant D Shopping mall Steering Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Steering Committee”) constituted all sectional owners of the instant shopping malls, and was established for the purpose of efficient management, etc. of the said shopping mall building, its site and its affiliated facilities.

(Article 1 and Article 15 of the Management Rules of the Defendant Steering Committee). Defendant E attended the meeting of the total of 208 households among the 363 households of each sectional owners of the instant shopping mall, and was elected as the head of the Steering Committee at the meeting of the Defendant Steering Committee on March 10, 209.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are managers of one aggregate building in which defendant E combines the four types of the shopping mall in this case, in collusion with "(1) Hyundai FM Co., Ltd., for which defendant E received a contract for management services for the entire shopping mall in this case (hereinafter referred to as "NM"), the plaintiffs unfairly calculate and impose management fees on the owners of the shopping mall in this case or at least Hyundai MM's management fees.