1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is an aggregate building consisting of 18 households in commercial buildings and 74 households in total of 92 households in officetels.

B. On April 16, 2013, B, D, and E constructed the instant building in partnership, and completed joint registration of ownership preservation with respect to the entire households of the instant building. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff and the instant building entered into a contract for comprehensive building management services (hereinafter “instant management services contract”).

From April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff managed the instant building on a yearly basis, and the said management services contract was renewed every year.

C. On January 23, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building management body was established under Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings as the members of sectional owners of the instant building, and notified the Plaintiff of the establishment of the management body of the instant building on January 23, 2015. On February 26, 2015, the management committee of the instant management body decided to change the instant building management to the autonomous management body, and notified the Plaintiff that the management body should terminate the instant management service contract on March 31, 2015, which is the expiration date of the contract and manage the instant building autonomously.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 4 and 6 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to change the management method of the Plaintiff’s assertion from the entrusted management to the autonomous management, it is unlawful for the Defendant to terminate the management service contract of the instant case, even though it is required to convene a management body meeting through the procedures under the Aggregate Buildings Act and the Building Management Rules, and the consent of at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights, or the chairperson of the management body of the instant building, despite the fact that the Defendant did

Therefore, the plaintiff is still a legitimate manager for the building of this case, and the defendant raises objection.