1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 23,952,772 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. On December 29, 2015, the defendant continued to dispute the plaintiff's claim after being served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case on December 29, 2015. On November 25, 2016, the date immediately preceding the fourth day for pleading, which was scheduled to be closed, filed the instant counterclaim. Accordingly, the court pointed out the possibility of delaying the lawsuit due to the filing of the counterclaim, and did not comply with the said request, even though the court requested additional vindication on the lawful requirements and the cause for the counterclaim, which was required by the fifth day for pleading.

In addition, the cause of the counterclaim asserted by the defendant is damage caused by the failure to manage the plaintiff's building and the poor management, and it is difficult to anticipate the period required for the defendant's assertion and proof in the future, as seen below in the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit as follows.

Therefore, since the defendant's counterclaim claim of this case constitutes a case where it substantially delays the principal lawsuit procedure, it is unlawful by the main text of Article 269 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a building A, which is an aggregate building located in the Busan Seo-gu B (hereinafter “instant building”).

A) A management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings consisting of all sectional owners and for the purpose of managing the said building. The Defendant is the instant building, which is the F101, G14 and G121 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

2) On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said lessee (Seoul District Court 201Gadan123076, hereinafter referred to as the “former District Court”) against the said lessee, and on May 7, 2012, the conciliation was concluded by the said court that the said lessee pays KRW 35,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

3. thereafter.