1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a co-owner of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment (hereinafter "the apartment in this case"), who is a representative of the above apartment 302 unit and a member of the defendant B apartment council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter "the defendant's representative council"), and the defendant's representative council is an organization established pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").

B. On May 7, 2011, the Defendant’s council of occupants’ representatives (the representative at that time was the Intervenor C) resolved to promote the conversion of the heating method of the instant apartment from the central heating to the individual heating, and on May 10, 2013, the Defendant’s council of occupants’ representatives (the representative at that time was the Defendant’s assistant Intervenor C) resolved to implement the deteriorated water pipeline replacement work together with the individual heating system conversion work.

In addition, on May 16, 2014, the Defendant’s council of occupants’ representatives decided to select Defendant Hoi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) as the construction company of the instant apartment complex’s individual heating conversion and water supply pipeline replacement work (hereinafter “instant first construction”). On May 29, 2014, the Defendant Company concluded the instant first construction contract with the Defendant Company, which is KRW 1,428,240,000 for total construction cost (including value-added tax).

C. On May 22, 2014, the first provisional disposition case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, asserting that “the first corporation of this case constitutes a change in the section for common use of apartment, and thus fails to meet the above requirements, and thus, the first construction contract of this case is null and void,” and that “the Defendant’s council of occupants’ representatives suspends the first construction work, and the first construction work of this case against the Defendant is all relevant to the first construction work of this case.”