1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The cost of the review shall be included.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 194, 1994, on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, a building of three underground floors and nine floors above ground was newly constructed. Of the above buildings, the part from three underground floors to four floors above ground (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

The remaining 5 to 9 floors are apartment parts.

(2) On June 2001, the co-owners of the instant commercial building form a “B management body” for the management of the said commercial building section. Since then, the shop owners who purchased 108 stores in the instant commercial building part have completed the registration of co-ownership transfer regarding each of the above commercial building parts.

(hereinafter “former Management Organization”) On November 2, 2003, the J, which was held on November 2, 2003, elected as a manager representing the previous Management Organization with the consent of a majority of co-ownership shares, concluded on August 2, 2008 a building management service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) entrusting the Plaintiff with the management of the instant commercial area (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

The content was that the Defendant performed the maintenance and management of the commercial building of this case from August 2, 2008 to July 30, 2013, such as electricity, facilities, buildings, etc. management expenses, cleaning, imposition and collection of management expenses, etc., and received service expenses in return.

3) On December 12, 2009, 23 of the co-owners of the instant commercial area, J, I, L, etc. hold a co-owners’ meeting of the said commercial area and re-established the Defendant for the management, etc. of the instant commercial area with the consent of a majority of co-ownership. At the above assembly, 11 members such as J, I, L, etc. were appointed as management members, during which L was the representative, and “BA management rules” was resolved upon; 4) thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued dispute over the right to manage the instant commercial area, while the Defendant, on November 3, 201, continued to dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the right to manage the instant commercial area, pursuant to Article 689(1) of the Civil Act.