1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant transferred the management of multi-family housing to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The reasons for this part are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

- the modified part - No. 1. E.

The Defendant revised the part of the claim as follows, “The Defendant is the business proprietor of the instant apartment on July 9, 2014, and is obligated to transfer and take over the instant apartment management affairs to the council of occupants’ representatives pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and accordingly, ordered the Plaintiff to take over the instant apartment management affairs (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(3) On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was served on July 15, 2014, as indicated in the attached text of the relevant laws and regulations.

Although the plaintiff's assertion summary of the parties concerned, the plaintiff newly constructed the apartment for the purpose of leasing the apartment of this case, the plaintiff was actually constructing the apartment of this case for the purpose of leasing it, and thereafter operating the apartment of this case as rental apartment.

Therefore, as a business entity under the Housing Act (a person who executes the business after obtaining approval of a housing construction project plan), not managing the apartment in this case, but managing the apartment in this case as a rental business entity under the Rental Housing Act, and as a management entity comprehensively transfers the status of the above rental business entity to the non-party company, the status of the management entity is also transferred. Therefore, there is no obligation to transfer the management

First of all, the defendant's argument that the non-party company did not report to the effect that "the apartment of this case was included in the rental business of the non-party company."

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot set up against the Defendant regarding a change in the status of a rental business operator. The Plaintiff lawfully transferred the status of a rental business operator to the non-party company.