1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,800,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 3, 2017 to June 20, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law who is in charge of legal advice and litigation affairs of the Defendant (manager C at the time of the agreement) and the Defendant is a management body comprised of all sectional owners of the building B located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. 1) E, a sectional owner of the instant building, was appointed as the Defendant’s manager at the meeting of the management body on June 8, 201, and was reappointed at the regular meeting of the management body held on July 25, 2014. However, among sectional owners of the instant building, the emergency response committee comprised of C, etc., from around 2010 to around 201, performed an act to receive power of attorney from the sectional owners of the instant building for the dismissal of existing administrators and appointment of new administrators. 2) The 326 members, who organized the emergency response committee, were the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s legal representative on May 7, 2014, filed an application for permission to convene the temporary meeting of the management body on May 7, 2014, and this court permitted temporary convocation of the management body meeting for the purpose of meeting “the dismissal and appointment of new administrators” on August 27, 2014.

3) Accordingly, the Emergency Countermeasure Committee held a temporary management body meeting on October 9, 2014. Of the 1,308 sectional owners of the instant building, 867 members among the 1,308 sectional owners of the instant building, the said management body meeting dismissed E and (or 862 marks), and the resolution was passed to appoint C as a new manager (or 860 marks) (hereinafter “instant general meeting resolution”).

(4) The Defendant, who is a custodian C, made the Plaintiff a legal representative and filed an application for provisional injunction against interference with business under this court’s 2014Kahap1589 on the ground that E does not take over the duties of the custodian. This court received the application on January 5, 2015.

On the other hand, persons, including E, who were opposed to C, are called C at this Court 2014Kahap1754.