1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant D, F,O, R, X, and AI are the money listed in the attached Table (D) column, and (A).

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff is a party-related building of the Yeongdeungpo-gu AU (hereinafter “instant building”).

AU management body consisting of sectional owners (hereinafter “Defendant management body”).

A) Between the parties to the instant building management contract and the entrustment contract under the terms of being entrusted with all the instant building management business (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

(2) The Defendants are the sectional owners of the instant building, and they own each store indicated in the column for “house” as indicated in the attached Table of the allocation sheet, and the entire area of each store is as indicated in the “area” indicated in the same table.

B. On August 17, 2012, Defendant AV’s notice of provisional disposition and indirect compulsory performance (hereinafter “instant termination notice”) stating that “AV is appointed as the manager of the Defendant management body and the instant entrustment contract is terminated” to the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant management body (hereinafter “instant termination notice”).

(2) On November 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Suwon District Court 2012Kahap427 to confirm the status of the instant consignment contract and to prohibit interference with management affairs. (2) On December 14, 2012, the said court imposed a duty not to interfere with business activities, such as interference with access to the management office, on the ground that the instant consignment contract was valid and the cause for termination did not occur, and issued a provisional disposition order to pay KRW 500,000 per time of the offense (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”) on the ground that the instant consignment contract was not effective and the cause for termination did not occur.

3 Even after the decision of provisional disposition in this case, Defendant AV asserted that he/she is the administrator of the Defendant management body, and continued to interfere with business by preventing the Plaintiff from entering the building management office of this case for 498 days from December 19, 2012 to April 30, 2014.