1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The “B commercial building” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) is a building newly built on the two underground floors and the five-story above ground level around 1992.

B. In around 1999, the Defendant was established by a part of the sectional owners of the instant commercial building. Since its establishment, it was the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”), and manages the instant commercial building by collecting and managing management expenses and parking expenses.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of No. 2-1 of evidence No. 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the instant commercial building does not meet the requirements stipulated in Article 1-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, it does not constitute an aggregate building under the Aggregate Buildings Act. Therefore, there is no management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be considered as a management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act of the commercial building of this case, and it is merely a non-corporate association which has no capacity to make up only some of the sectional owners of the commercial building of this case.

B. The Defendant did not constitute a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings of the Commercial Building, but did not conclude a lease contract with the Plaintiff regarding the commercial building of this case.

Therefore, the defendant can not claim management expenses to the plaintiff, and there is no obligation to pay management expenses to the defendant.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a managing body’s position, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the present rights or legal status, and thereby, determination of the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is in danger and in danger (see Supreme Court Decisions 2017Da216271, Jul. 11, 2017; 2009Da9329, Feb. 25, 2010).