1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant leased part of the 7th and 8th floor of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

At the time, the commercial building of this case was imposed and collected management fees as management company A.

B. Some lessors (C, D, E, F, G) of the 7th and the 8th floor of the instant shopping mall and the 8th floor and the Defendant, A, and Plaintiff, a lessee, agreed to amend part of the existing lease agreement on April 12, 2012.

hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement on the Change of Management Companies on April 12, 2012".

(3) The Defendant did not pay management fees for the leased portion from January 4, 2012 to July 2013, and did not pay accumulated unpaid management fees to KRW 68,625,719. 【The fact that there was no dispute with the recognition of the ground for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence No. 1 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) No. 1.

each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion claims that the Defendant pay the accumulated unpaid management expenses, KRW 68,625,719, and damages for delay.

3. Determination ex officio as to the plaintiff's standing to sue

A. If there exists a seizure and collection order against the legal claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888 delivered on April 11, 2000). In addition, when a claim in arrears is seized due to national taxes, the obligor of the pertinent claim is unable to pay the relevant obligation to the obligee of the pertinent claim, and is paid only to the competent tax official. As such, the obligee of the pertinent claim cannot exercise the seized claim.

Supreme Court Decision 200 March 201.