1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for prohibition of the act in [Attachment 1] Nos. 3 through 6 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s administrator appointment 1) at the meeting of the management body on August 25, 2005, the Defendant, C, and D are the Defendant, C, and D’s building (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On June 30, 2006, the Plaintiff was elected as a joint manager, and D resigned from the management office. (2) On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff held a management body meeting and passed a resolution to dismiss the Defendant from the management office.

B. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation, such as the Defendant’s resolution of dismissal, etc., was filed by the Defendant on May 15, 2012, claiming that the resolution of the management body meeting as of May 15, 2012 was null and void, and the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on February 7, 2013 (2) (i.e., Seoul Southern District Court 2012Gahap9332). However, the Defendant filed an appeal, but the Seoul High Court determined that the resolution of dismissing the Defendant on March 21, 2014 was valid, and declared that the other resolution was null and void.

(2013Na16956). The defendant filed an appeal.

C. On June 12, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court accepted the Plaintiff’s application and rendered a provisional disposition prohibiting interference with business (the Seoul Southern District Court Order 2014Kahap313 dated November 7, 2014). 25 March 25, 2015, the Seoul High Court (the Seoul High Court Order 2014Kahap246 and 2014Kahap313 dated November 7, 2014) rendered a provisional disposition prohibiting interference with business against the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s claim or collection of management fees against the lessee of the building owned by the Defendant cannot be deemed as interference with business of the management body, and thus the collection of management fees that the lessor received from the lessee of the building owned by the Defendant shall be excluded from the scope of interference with business of the management body.)

(Supreme Court Order 2015Ma667 Decided July 17, 2015, hereinafter “related provisional disposition”). D.

C’s custodian.