1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants, as the parties, are the co-owners of the O-owned building in Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building P shop (hereinafter “instant store”) from Defendant J to February 7, 2016 from August 1, 2007 to KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and operated a store in Q Q’s trade name.

B. 1) In the instant shopping mall dispute, the Organization established by a part of the sectional owners of the instant shopping mall (hereinafter “O shopping mall”) is an organization.

around June 13, 2009, R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “R”)

(2) On August 25, 2011, among the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff established an extraordinary general meeting and elected Defendant D as the representative of the O sectional owner management body (hereinafter “O representative council”). On September 201, the O representative meeting concluded a contract under which the management of the instant commercial building was entrusted to S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) and notified R of the termination of the said entrustment contract.

3) Afterwards, disputes over the management authority of the instant commercial building were continued between the sectional owners and the sectional owners of the O's representative meeting. C. 1) The O's representative meeting (representative D), etc. against the O's representative meeting, etc., filed a lawsuit against the O's representative meeting, etc. seeking confirmation that there was no resolution selected by theO's representative as the manager of the instant commercial building (Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap21052, Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap21052, and the resolution of the general meeting was invalidated).

On September 4, 2012, the above court did not regard the "O representative meeting as a legitimate management body of the commercial building of this case" but has a substantial interest in dispute over the above resolution.