1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

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

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the building in this case”) is an aggregate building used as a commercial building. Among the first floor of the building in this case, the Plaintiff owns 28, 22, 3, 24, 25, 25, and 6 stores of the Plaintiff among the first floor of the building in this case.

The location and status of the store owned by the plaintiff and the defendants shall be as shown in attached Form 1.

B. The underground floor of the instant building is in contact with India, the front floor of the building (the part where a store in subparagraphs B1 through B6 is located).

The outer walls of subparagraphs B1 through B5 were installed in both sides, such as as attached Forms 1 through 4, and the outer walls of subparagraph B6 were built in reinforced concrete, and they were installed in the lower end, and they were possible to enter the building of this case only through the entrance located on the side of subparagraph B1.

C. However, Defendant B, C, D, and E installed a door at each of their own stores by arbitrarily changing the glass walls and fireproofs, which were originally installed, and Defendant F installed a door leading to the interior of each shop. Defendant F installed a door leading to the door inside the glass wall and the store by arbitrarily altering the reinforced concrete outer wall and the fireproofs of the owned store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including each lot number application), the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the alteration of the instant building by the Defendants constitutes the alteration of common areas, and thus requires a resolution of assembly by a majority of at least 3/4 of sectional owners and voting rights, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 15(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Joint Management Act”). The resolution on April 8, 2016, which was held by the management body of the instant building, is no longer effective as procedural and content defects exist. Therefore, the Defendants seek restitution, such as the written purport of the claim, as a sectional owner of the instant building, according to the act of preservation.