1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building (hereinafter “instant building”) Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 120.

B. The instant building was in the state where the outer wall of the underground floor was removed and a entrance leading to the ground was installed at the branch office of the lower floor. Nonparty B, the owner of the said branch office, filed an application for permission of acts with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”) around February 2012 in order to make the said state lawful in administrative procedures.

C. On March 5, 2012, the Defendant notified on the ground that the instant application satisfies the criteria for permission of acts under Article 42 of the Housing Act and Article 47(1) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, that the permission of acts concerning “establishment of entrance and exit after removing the outer wall of underground floors” was ratified (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 5-18, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the ground that the instant disposition was conducted without the resolution of the management body meeting under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings or without the consent or consent of other sectional owners, the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the said disposition in the position of the sectional owners of the instant building.

On the other hand, the instant disposition is only a measure to “injecture” a building that is in conformity with the current laws and regulations but is in conformity with the procedure of permission for acts, etc., and is not a measure to be treated as a legitimate building under administrative procedures in the future. It is found that the instant disposition

Even if the building in this case is not immediately restored to its original state before the removal of outer walls, and if the rights of other sectional owners were infringed due to the above change of common areas, the disposition in this case is justified.