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 Plaintiff is a leading company for security-based station business, and the representative meeting of the occupants of Defendant B apartment units (hereinafter “the representative meeting of the occupants of the Defendant”) is an autonomous organization composed of representatives elected by the occupants for the management of B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a multi-family housing management entity that operates multi-family housing management business.

B. Around February 21, 2014, the representative meeting of the Defendant occupant and the Defendant Company entrusted the management of the instant apartment (matters prescribed as the management entity’s duties under the subparagraphs of Article 55(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, each subparagraph of Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and other former Housing Act, the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, and the Enforcement Rule) to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company entered into a contract for the management of the instant apartment with the content of managing the instant apartment by placing a management office as an agent.

(c)

Around March 14, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s agent’s agent “The instant apartment management complaint D,” the instant apartment management contract was concluded with the content that the Plaintiff managed the guard business of the instant apartment upon delegation from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

According to this, the contract term is from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017, the service amount is KRW 41,597,00 per month, and the number of security guards is 28.

(d)

The Plaintiff placed security guards belonging to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant service contract and performed the instant apartment security service during the contract period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul's witness E and F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the representative meeting of the defendant occupant or the head of the apartment management department of this case, who is an employee of the defendant company, works for the security guards in the beginning of the door of the apartment.