1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

Defendant B is the chairman of the autonomous committee of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel (hereinafter “instant officetel”), and Defendant C is the Director of the Office of Management of the instant officetel, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant officetel E from G Co., Ltd., which was a trust company of the instant officetel on November 28, 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2012.

The instant officetel autonomous committee did not pay delinquent management expenses equivalent to KRW 3,538,560 when the Plaintiff acquired the instant officetel E’s ownership. On November 25, 2015, the instant officetel autonomous committee was decided to make a provisional attachment under the Special Metropolitan City District Court 2015Kadan475 with the claim for delinquent management expenses as the claim for the instant officetel E.

On August 25, 2016, the instant officetel autonomous committee decided to prohibit the use of the instant officetels E in accordance with Article 40(2) of the Management Rules of the Officetel of this case.

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant officetel E to H, and H was parked in the instant officetel under the name of the real estate brokerage office without registering the relevant vehicle under his/her own name due to a resolution of prohibition on the use of the said officetel by the instant autonomous committee.

[Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including the number with a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the defendants' main defense of safety, the defendants asserted that the defendants' act of interference with parking and sought compensation for damages arising therefrom, by asserting that the defendants are engaged in interference with parking as the chairperson and manager of the Officetel autonomous committee of this case. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful, since there is no lack of interference with the parking of the occupants of the Officetel Nos. 2 and 5.

In principle, the performance suit shall be considered as a matter of principle.