1. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) claims confirmation of the absence of management expense obligation from January 2001 to March 2009 among the main lawsuit of Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4-1, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No.

1) Around February 1995, the Defendant Union consisting of the props in Seoul, Jung-gu and 12 parcels of land, and DI Building (hereinafter “DI Building”) consisting of 6 underground floors, 15th commercial buildings and officetels buildings on the ground of the above land (hereinafter “DI Building”).

(2) The plaintiffs of this case are non-corporate entities newly built and sold, and Defendant DH is a corporation established on December 11, 1999 for the maintenance and management of DI shops and for the performance of duties related to the revitalization of commercial buildings. 2) The plaintiffs of this case from around 2000 to the defendant association.