The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence. The management organization of this case is an organization established by the co-owners of the above commercial part for the management of the above commercial part, which is jointly owned pursuant to Article 265 of the Civil Code. The above co-owners delegated the management of the above commercial part to the defendant C (the representative of the management organization of this case at the time of the above management organization) by a majority resolution of co-ownership at the meeting of this case on November 2, 2003, and the defendant C entered into the service contract of this case within the scope of its management. Thus, the right to collect the management fee of this case from the plaintiff on August 2, 2008 can be deemed to be recognized. However, if the management organization of this case and the plaintiff want to recover the right to collect the management fee granted by the management organization of this case to the plaintiff on the ground of dispute between the management organization of this case and the plaintiff, the management organization of this case can only claim the service fee of this case against the management organization and the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the lower court, on June 3, 2010, sent to G the Plaintiff’s representative a certificate of content that the representative I of the instant management organization asserted invalidation and termination of the instant service agreement, and around that time the said notice was delivered, and therefore, at least thereafter, the instant case is in accordance with Article 689(1) of the Civil Act.