1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Removal of Defendant B from the administrator of Defendant C Management Body

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The C Building located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and three lots (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) is composed of public facilities, such as parking lots, from the 7th underground to the 3rd underground floors, divided stores from the 2nd underground to the 9th underground floors, and partitioned buildings from the 10th ground to the 20th underground floors (business facilities).

B. The Plaintiff is the co-owner of the instant commercial building, and the Defendant C management body (hereinafter “Defendant C management body”) is an organization established for the purpose of managing the instant commercial building pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”). Defendant B, as the co-owner of the 6th floor of the instant commercial building, was appointed as the manager of the Defendant management body on February 28, 201 as the co-owner of the 6th floor of the instant commercial building, and thereafter managing the instant commercial building until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B violated the duty of care as an illegal act or manager under Article 24(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act shall be dismissed from office as the manager of the Defendant management body pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

1) The Defendant B interfered with business by fraudulent means or by force, such as obstruction of business, occupational embezzlement and breach of trust, etc.) and obstruction of business by deceptive means or by force, by unilaterally closing the business or the place of business without following due process to prevent the O and P, the shop occupants who carry out other opinions with themselves from carrying out the business by taking advantage of the superior status of the administrator.

B) Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement: (a) pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kahap1064, Defendant B collected KRW 114,948,995 from sectional owners and merchants and arbitrarily used the instant commercial building without title until he/she reaches his/her maturity until he/she reaches his/her maturity, pursuant to the provisional disposition prohibiting interference with business operations by Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap1064.