1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant D Building Management Body (1) Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building D No. 106.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for prohibition of interference with acts, such as parking against the Defendant management body, Plaintiff A’s claim for removal of fences against the Defendants, Plaintiff C’s claim for compensation equivalent to KRW 780,000,000 for parking card usage fee against the Defendants of Plaintiff C. The claim for consolation money against the Defendants of Plaintiff A and B, and the claim for compensation equivalent to KRW 2,40,000 for hallway usage fee against the Defendants of Plaintiff C were all dismissed.

B. Since only the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant management body, which was accepted by the court of first instance for the prohibition of interference with the act of parking, etc. against the Defendant management body, Plaintiff A’s claim against the Defendants, and claim for damages equivalent to KRW 780,000 of the

2. Basic facts

A. The defendant management body is a management body aimed at carrying out projects on the management of buildings D in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (a building consisting of 9 households, 65 households, and 110 households in commercial buildings, which consists of 5 stories above the ground and 20 stories above the ground; hereinafter "the instant aggregate building"), its site, and its affiliated facilities.

Defendant E is a person who is in office as the chairperson of Defendant E management body from around 2010 to November 6, 2014, and from April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2015.

B. On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff A acquired the partitioned ownership of the instant condominium No. 106 (hereinafter “106”) and Plaintiff B, January 6, 2014 (hereinafter “107”) respectively.

C. On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff C is operating a restaurant with the trade name of “F” in the entire number of Nos. 106 from Plaintiff A and part of Nos. 107 from Plaintiff B on March 31, 2014.

In the instant condominium, underground parking lots are installed as common areas from the second to fifth underground floors, and the management rules on the instant condominiums (hereinafter referred to as the “management rules”) are as follows.