1. The plaintiff (defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts are as follows: (a) the part of the underground third to fourth to fourth above the ground among the 9th underground floors and the 9th underground floors on the land in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was newly constructed on June 1994; (b) the part of the 5th to nine floors above the ground (hereinafter “the part of the 5th to nine floors”) was registered as a single commercial building; and (c) the registration of share transfer was made to the number of buyers of the inside 108 stores according to the floor area.

On June 22, 2001, co-owners of the portion of a commercial building form a “B management body” (hereinafter “previous management body”) for the management of the portion of the commercial building and elected a representative manager of the previous management body as the manager. However, on November 2, 2003, the co-owners held a co-owner’s meeting on November 2, 2003 and elected J as the representative manager with the consent of 70.25% of the shares

(2) On August 2, 2008, the lower court concluded a building management service agreement (hereinafter “instant service agreement”) with the Plaintiff that “The representative manager of the former management organization shall be responsible for specific management of the part of the building in a commercial building from August 2, 2008 to July 30, 2013” (hereinafter “instant service agreement”).

However, on November 3, 2011, the Defendant asserted that he is the authorized administrator of the part of the commercial building and sent a written notification to the Plaintiff that the instant service contract is terminated, which is a delegation contract. This written notification was delivered to the Plaintiff on the following day.

Accordingly, on April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages claim against the Defendant by designating the Defendant’s representative as L, and claimed that “The Defendant incurred damages worth KRW 771,120,000,000, equivalent to the management expenses that the Defendant would have been able to obtain due to the termination of the instant service contract on November 4, 201,” which is part of which the Plaintiff claimed damages claim amounting to KRW 200,000,000, which is part of the claim.

Accordingly, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings on June 27, 2013.