1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. B, as a co-owner and co-owner of the building C, D, E, F, and G, completed the H Condominium Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) with the construction and completion of the construction, and provided that the contract shall be automatically extended under the same condition, if the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the management of the instant commercial building on October 30, 2008 with the Plaintiff on October 30, 208, when the registration of ownership preservation for each section of exclusive ownership was completed in the name of the said B, etc.

(hereinafter “instant management consignment agreement”). (b)

From November 3, 2008, the Plaintiff is performing the management of the shopping mall of this case from November 3, 2008 to the present.

C. On June 4, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with I as to the instant building 103 (hereinafter “instant store”) and occupied and used the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 17, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff has the right to impose management fees on the Plaintiff. Even if the management body meeting of the instant commercial building is deemed unlawful, the Plaintiff entrusted the management of the instant commercial building by J, the manager appointed at the management body meeting of the instant commercial building held on February 7, 2015, and the said management body meeting has the right to impose management fees on the Defendant since it was duly entrusted by B, the representative of the seller of the instant commercial building, and thus, the Defendant has the right to impose management fees on the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s management body meeting held on February 7, 2015 is null and void because it did not go through legitimate convocation procedures, and the saidJ cannot be deemed a legitimate right of the instant commercial building, and the right to impose management fees on the instant commercial building is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s management body of the instant commercial building.