1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a company operating a multi-family housing management business, facility management business, etc., and entered into an entrustment management contract with the council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter "the instant apartment") regarding the management of the instant apartment located in Gwangju-si (hereinafter "the instant apartment"), and on November 18, 2012, the Defendant, an employee of the company, appointed the head of the management office of the instant apartment as the head of the management office.

B. Around January 2013, the council of lessees’ representatives of the instant apartment (hereinafter “the council of lessees’ representatives”) held a council of lessees’ representatives to change the purpose of the public toilets of the instant apartment to facilities attached to the management office (U.S.), and passed a resolution on “the public toilets of the instant apartment to be changed to the waiting room of the management office, and the public toilets of the instant apartment are removed under the wall and fence, and the Defendant was notified thereof.”

C. However, the Defendant did not report to the Plaintiff on the instant resolution, and the Corporation following the instant resolution is bound to be subject to administrative disposition, such as restoration order under Article 91 of the Housing Act because it constitutes an unlawful alteration of use, but did not take any measures as to the progress of the instant construction project at the council of lessees’ representatives.

(hereinafter “Defendant’s act”). D.

Around September 2013, the council of lessees’ representatives of this case completed construction according to the resolution of this case. Around September 2016, the competent administrative agency issued an administrative disposition, such as an order of restoration under Article 91 of the Housing Act, to the Plaintiff on the ground that the above construction constitutes an illegal alteration of the use of subsidiary facilities of multi-family housing. The Plaintiff spent the amount of KRW 4,649,160 on January 2017 and completed restoration work.

E. In other words, the defendant is the head of the management office of the apartment of this case and is in violation of the Housing Act.