1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim.

1. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is as follows: (a) the Defendants jointly purchased E-building No. 801 and No. 901 of the 8th and the 901 of the 9th and the 901 of the 9th (hereinafter “No. 801” or “No. 901”; and (b) acquired one-half shares of the instant building among the instant buildings by full payment of the sale price on January 22, 2013; (c) pursuant to Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Joint Buildings Act”), the Defendants paid the total amount of KRW 1/2 shares of the instant building among the instant buildings to the former owners of the instant building, as stated in attached Table 1; (d) the electrical construction cost for common areas and construction cost for common areas; (e) new construction cost; (e) basic electrical safety inspection cost; (e) value-added tax on the aggregate of KRW 323,1298 and KRW 258 of the instant building; and (e. 2068) the Defendants’s of the instant building, 206.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of management expenses against the Defendants is unlawful, since the Plaintiff is not the manager elected at the assembly of the building building management body, and even if elected, the authority as the manager has ceased to exist due to the expiration of the term of office. Therefore, the instant lawsuit claiming the payment of management expenses against the Defendants in the position of the manager is instituted by a person disqualified as the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff, not the manager, is the