1. The plaintiffs' primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiffs are Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

2) The Defendant is an organization formed with all sectional owners as members for the purpose of implementing the project relating to the management of the instant commercial building and its site and its accessory facilities in accordance with the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”).

B. 1) On May 21, 2016, the Defendant appears to be the ordinary management body meeting under Article 32 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which set forth the following matters as an agenda item.

hereinafter referred to as “instant ordinary meeting”

(1) The case of 1: The case of 2nd case of the appointment of the administrator of the commercial management body (the president): the case of 3rd case of the appointment of the administrator of the commercial management body: the case of the modification of the commercial management rules: the case of 4th case of the modification of the whole floor and the case of 5th case of the divided lease: other cases: 2) the Defendant, from the general meeting of this case, made a resolution that the Defendant, at the general meeting of this case, E, as the Defendant’s manager and the representative committee concurrently, F, G, as the auditor of the above representative committee, H, I, as the vice-chairperson of the above representative committee, J, K, K, L, M, N, P, P, Q, Q, Q, T, V, X, X, and Y as the chairman of the above representative committee (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

C. Of the relevant provisions, the part related to the instant case in the Aggregate Building Act and the Defendant’s agreement is as indicated in the attached Form “relevant statutes” and the management body agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the prior defense of the merits is that the plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff Co., Ltd.") is not a sectional owner of the commercial building of this case, and therefore there is no standing to be a party. However, the fact that the plaintiff Co., Ltd. is a sectional owner of the commercial building of this case is identical as seen earlier. Thus, the plaintiff Co., Ltd.