The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne individually by each person.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of the representatives of the instant apartment units by Dong.

B. In order to change the heating system of the instant apartment from the central heating to the individual heating, the Defendant applied for permission to remove the central heating system (appurtenant facilities) to the head of Gangnam-gu on August 6, 2018, along with a written consent of 1,214 households among the 1,454 households pursuant to the relevant statutes, including the Multi-Family Housing Management Act.

On August 23, 2018, the head of Gangnam-gu, the head of Gangnam-gu, based on the consent of 1,052 households (72.35%) except the households withdrawing consent, approved the above act by deeming that the households meet the requirements for permission under the above law.

C. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant announced a bid for the selection of individual heating unit companies of the instant apartment complex, and promoted the instant construction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application with Seoul Northern District Court 2018Kahap20286 for the said bidding procedure and the subsequent provisional disposition to suspend the instant construction. On September 11, 2018, the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s application for provisional disposition on the ground that “The conversion of the heating supply method of the instant apartment from the central heating to the individual heating constitutes the alteration of the common area that substantially alters the form or utility of the common area, and thus requires a resolution of at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights or an agreement of at least 4/5 of the sectional owners and voting rights by a written or electronic method at the management body meeting pursuant to Articles 15(1) and 41(1) of the Multi-Family Building Act. The Defendant did not clearly prove that the Defendant obtained the consent of at least 72.35% of all the entire households of the instant apartment, as well as the written consent of at least 72.35% of the entire sectional owners and voting rights.”

E. The defendant raised an objection against the provisional disposition of this case.