1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. D shall be the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Business Building Management Body.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the management body of the part of the building of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment Building (hereinafter referred to as the "instant commercial building"), the main complex building.

The current status of divided ownership of the commercial building of this case is as shown in the list of divided owners.

The Defendants are the sectional owners of the instant commercial building.

(The defendant's sectional ownership is as shown in the annexed sectional ownership list). The defendant Industrial Bank of Korea owns 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112 commercial buildings of this case and operates a bank store in the above sectional ownership as shown in the annexed drawing (2).

Defendant B and C are siblingss, and they are divided into 101, 102, 104, 105, 113, 114, 115, and 116, and they are operated a restaurant in the above separate ownership with the mother F.

The approximate status of the first floor of the commercial building of this case is as shown in the attached Form (1).

[Grounds for recognition] As to Gap 1, 2-1 to 2-9, Gap 19-1 to 19-56. 20, 21-1 to 21-56, 22-1 to 22-24, 23-1 to 23-1-16, and the order of determination of the field inspection result of this court and the whole purport of arguments, the plaintiff asserted that the common area among the buildings of this case was used as the first floor corridor without permission, and with regard to defendant Eul and Eul, the plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the above unauthorized Use period against the defendant Industrial Bank, removal of the above illegal use portion against the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above illegal use. The plaintiff's representative did not have the plaintiff's representative or manager of the commercial building of this case through legitimate procedures, the plaintiff's defense of this case is unlawful. At the same time, the defendant Eul and C did not first confirm the plaintiff's counterclaim's status as the plaintiff's representative and manager of the commercial building of this case.