1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ relevant defendant Ctel management body (hereinafter “Defendant management body”) is the management body under Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which consists of all sectional owners of Ctel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), and the defendant B is the manager of the defendant management body, and the plaintiff is the owner of the above officetel.

B. Defendant B’s primary manager appointment 1) An application for provisional disposition seeking the appointment of a temporary manager of Defendant management body was received at the Seoul Central District Court as the internal section of the Defendant management body, and the said court appointed an attorney-at-law as a temporary manager of Defendant management body around May 16, 201. 2) An attorney-at-law held a temporary management body on June 16, 201, and Defendant B was appointed as the manager of Defendant management body at the above assembly.

C. On March 28, 2012, before Defendant B was appointed as a manager, E’s attorney-at-law is the Korea Management Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Management Services”) that entrusted and managed the instant officetels on or around March 28, 2012.

(3) Around July 23, 2012, Defendant B entered into an entrustment management contract with the purport that the instant officetel will continue to be entrusted with the management of the instant officetel until the custodian is newly appointed. Around July 23, 2012, Defendant B entered into the entrustment management contract with the purport that the instant officetel will continue to be entrusted with the management of the instant officetel.

4. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap37584 to the effect that “The above consignment management contract as of March 28, 2012 was null and void because it did not obtain a resolution of the administrator’s meeting,” but the said court was appointed on November 8, 2012 by Defendant B as the administrator of the Defendant management body on June 16, 2012 and on March 28, 2012.