1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the representative of the plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The business entity that constructed and sold officetels, neighborhood living facilities, medical facilities, and business facilities (hereinafter “instant officetels”) on the 43th floor above the 5th floor above the 5th floor underground in Busan, Daegu, under the name of "A", and the Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Construction”) is a contractor who newly constructed and sold the instant officetels under a contract for the instant officetel construction work from the corporation Samsung Construction Co., Ltd., and the Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. is a company that issued a warranty bond for the instant officetels construction work on October 29, 2008.

B. On September 26, 2008, Defendant Daewoo Construction completed the construction work of the instant officetel and obtained approval for use from the competent authority.

C. Of the 426 households, 320 households, among the entire owners of the instant officetels, assigned each of them to the A management body against the project proprietor, including executive companies, construction companies, and guarantee companies, the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repair and the right to notify assignment of claims pursuant thereto was delegated to the A management body.

On April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that the Plaintiff was transferred the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repair from the aforementioned sectional owners as the content-certified mail and the preparatory document dated March 28, 2014.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendants alleged by the parties are not the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and there is no substance as a non-corporate body, and thus, they are not capable of being a party.

As to this, the plaintiff himself, Article 23 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").