1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The plaintiff is a housing management operator who operates a multi-family housing management business, and the defendant is a council of occupants' representatives comprised of the representatives of the new Young-gu apartment located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

▣ 이 사건 위탁관리계약 제12조(계약기간) ① 이 계약기간은 2016. 5. 1.부터 2018. 4. 30.까지(2년간)로 한다.

(2) Where the management entity changes, the employees of the plaintiff working at the management office may succeed to the employment of a new management entity after obtaining consent from the council of occupants' representatives to continue the management of multi-family housing

B. On April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into the instant consignment management contract with the Defendant, setting the contract period from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant consignment management contract”).

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant held a council of occupants’ representatives on September 21, 2017, and discussed whether the instant consignment management contract was terminated as one of the agenda items, and decided to terminate the instant consignment management contract with the assent of seven members present at the 12 representatives of the instant apartment complex, among the 12 representatives of the instant apartment buildings.

(hereinafter “Resolution on Termination of the instant entrusted management contract”) D.

The Defendant, through a written notification from October 20, 2017, known the Plaintiff that the instant consignment management contract was terminated as of October 31, 2017 by the said decision, and concluded a new consignment contract with the Seocho Development Co., Ltd. and the instant apartment on November 6, 2017 following the tendering procedure for the selection of a housing management operator.

The defendant's decision on the termination of the entrusted management contract of this case by the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion of facts without any dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap's 5, 11, 12, and 15, Eul's evidence Nos. 3-1 and 3-2, and the purport of the whole argument cannot be the quorum under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, which requires the consent of the majority of the members of the council