1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,303,50 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 4, 2015 to November 9, 2016, and the following.

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Building Act”), such as that the rules of the management body and the resolution for the election of the manager becomes null and void by the court’s judgment, the Plaintiff’s defense before the merits cannot be deemed as a management body composed of B department stores located in Bupyeong-si (hereinafter “instant building”) and matters concerning the management of the site and its accessory facilities, and the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful since the temporary manager cannot be deemed a legitimate manager.

B. The management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is a body established not only by any organizational act but also by a group of sectional owners (Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings). Thus, if a management body consisting of sectional owners and it conforms to the purport of Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, it can act as a management body regardless of its form

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da27199 Decided August 23, 1996 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27199, Aug. 23, 1996). In full view of the absence of dispute between the parties or significant facts in this court, and the purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff passed a resolution to appoint C as a custodian on September 29, 2010; a part of the sectional owners of the instant building filed a lawsuit to nullify the above resolution against the Plaintiff on September 29, 2010; the Incheon District Court accepted the claim in the case No. 2012Da241, Jun. 23, 2013; the Seoul High Court, while the appellate court in the process of the above judgment, decided that D is an attorney-at-law as an acting administrator until the judgment to nullify the above resolution became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Ka1045). Accordingly, the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2013 non.