1. The Plaintiff:

A. The defendant is marked on the six-story rooftop of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel in the annexed list (1).

1. Facts of recognition (the status of the plaintiff and the defendant);

A. The Dotel located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly constructed by the Defendant on May 31, 2002, and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant was completed on May 31, 2002.

B. On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired 8 households (Nos. 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, and 310) from among the instant buildings, and the Defendant owns 27 households from among the instant buildings until now.

[The defendant's use status as to the section for common use of the building of this case]

C. Of the instant building, the building permitted area of the sixth floor is 13.51 square meters or more; the Defendant constructed a brick sloping roof building (hereinafter “the instant building”) in contact with the permitted area, such as a photographic image, and uses it as a real estate leased object.

[Attachment A list (1) drawings and photographs in attached Form (1)]. D.

The Defendant, among the instant buildings, installed a entrance in a part of the stairs going from the 7th to the 8th rooftop from among the floors of the instant building, and occupied and used part of the stairs of the 7th floor and the 8th rooftop as an independent space (hereinafter “instant building”) by constructing reinforced concrete and brick building on the 8th rooftop part.

[Attachment A list (2) drawings and photographs of attached Form (1)]. (e)

The Defendant attached the signboard (hereinafter “instant signboard”) stating “studio-leaseF” as shown in the attached photo (2) to the outer wall of the instant building, and occupies and uses this part of the outer wall.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 5, 6, 9 (including number ; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case on the defense prior to the merits asserts that it is unlawful because there is no resolution by the management body meeting under Article 43(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).