beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “C”) had difficulty in managing and operating real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “Attachment No. 2”) from the time of new construction and sale in around 198 to the time of fraudulentation, escape, etc. After that, 528 stores (other than this, 3 floors are not classified by each floor from 7 to 9 floors, but are operated as one private house or business place) which were subdivided by the separate wall for each floor from 1 to 6 floors underground were sold in lots, and the separate registration by each store was completed. However, most of the stores were vacant rooms, and the store owners from 1st to 6th 6th tier above were not active due to the lack of various disputes.
The management and operation of the Luxembourg C, which had been originally implemented, was managed by the House Government Development Co., Ltd., and divided the operation at the merchants' committee composed of buyers. On December 24, 199, the representative of each floor of C, who was the promoters, was established by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "E Co., Ltd."), which was a new management company, and E Co., Ltd. was operated and managed by E Co., Ltd. with the acquisition of the above management and operation rights. At the time, the store located in C, which was located in C, was merely the F Burial of the first floor and the sports center of the sixth floor on the ground (the 7th floor and the 9th floor above the 7th floor above the 9th floor above the 7th floor above the 7th floor above the 9th floor above the 3th floor above the 3rd
Secondly, from around 2001 to around 2002, E company representative G et al. removed all sectionally owned walls of each shop without the consent of the owners under the pretext that each floor from C’s underground level to six above ground level was made into an open store. Accordingly, the above G et al. was subject to criminal punishment due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.